Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Dmitry Medvedev
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
For a bumming session with Noel Fielding
|Humour:||5.5||Excellent topic, not too sure about the handling. The first thing that struck me was the prose, I dislike the first person narration articles for the most part - the reason why is clearer here. Many sentences seem off string with "And" in the second section and shorter sentences like "That message came across loud and clear." - This style of writing is not so great, unless it's appropriate to the context, like Observational Comedy. I think I would really go over the prose style; admittedly most of it would go though a spell checker, its just not good writing - much of the humour seems to have become lost in the style that you’ve written it in. The second thing is the formatting and structure (sorry to be so critical here) the into is way off (though good use of Russian name which kicks off to a good start) it should be a lot longer - to reiterate the maxim "Say it, say it more and say it again" - the intro is not doing this and is shows.
The Georgia bit at the end seems tacked on - although Wikipedia will do this, I think there’s a pretty good argument that the entire article should be more cohesive, I would bring n the Georgia issue with wider foreign policy f the Russian Federation, and this will give a fuller sense, I don't think that as a conclusion it works well. "References" - this is not really a reference but a footnote - this is an inaccurate in a bad way. The template at the bottom is a mixed issue, on one hand it whores one of my articles in another it looks ugly, and too large for the article length - I suggest removing it and having a "See also" section, this will keep relevant issues tied in. the other Whoops template at the top also looks a little out of place - If you have a built up introduction these this tend to blend in a little - if it's shorter like here it really sticks out.
There’s good understanding of the topic, I feel that there’s a real issue with formatting and prose - this is likely to put my critic hat on, I think there’s a good article in here, it a question of maybe reworking it into a better state - this is always the way with articles, its just more so with this one. The "Policies section is listy, these are discouraged in the Pee guidelines and by me - again these should be worked into prose - preferably encyclopedic, but still funny.
A major issue I feel was that the article seems to lack a voice, i.e. you don't seem to have any opinion - it sort of "Medvedev is a tyrant puppet of Putin lol" - If I was personally doing it I would maybe have quite a torn writer (in a similar way Russia seems to be torn into extremes) - possibly o one hand hating the government and Medvedev and on anther kind of embracing a Faustian pact with him and his ideas? - This is a bit ambitious but it’s a very interesting topic and I think that it would not hurt to really go for it. To be honest it’s a little predictable, however you've done some really great articles and I think you could really pull a stormer with this.
|Concept:||9.5||Brilliant concept, poor execution - I would consider the writing style very seriously as it seems to be missing the spot here. The formatting is unfortunate t say the least. it also reads too much like a propaganda piece - this could be alright, its just a little narrow, I would maybe try and write it from how you would imagine a Russian to write it, or even what he himself would think of the article if he read it - would Medvedev find it funny and witty? It’s just a question of broadening out the concept - it’s just too narrow at the moment|
|Prose and formatting:||5||The images are all wrong, there all over the place and of different sizes: ideally align write and have them all the same size (Mhaille usually has around 250px, or 300px if he's too lazy to make or find more - I personally think this looks about right). I like many of the ones you've chosen; I would say that around four on an article of this length, and less all over the place.
As I mentioned before the prose is not too cool, I would have a look though it very closely, Often clunky short sentences and poor grammar really cripple an article - For example "Elected in" would better be "He was elected in 2008" - there’s few of these throughout, and it’s definatly something to work on. I maintain that unless specifically relevant to a topic, articles should be detached (encyclopedic, a major aspect of the humour I that they are like wikipedia articles a pseudo academic resource with blatant bias and inaccuracy), that’s not to say they don't have a voice, for example I did another Russia themed article in Battleship Potemkin - there’s a fair bit of dissent against much of the Russian ideology there, something along similar lines would work very well here I think.
Ultimalty it’s going to be about spending the time to get he flow right and all the sections into a cohesive state, there’s little use of subsections, (Georgia should be one of these I think) and also of linkage - A lightsabre look is the aim in my opinion; the article is a little short on links.
|Images:||6||Good images for the most part, one too many and contrasting sizes and alignment make them look pretty crap to tell the truth - The captions are however funny, and I would not change anything too drastic with these, I also like the use of real images here rather than photoshopped ones, this feels like a good way you go about things wit the topic. Nothing too critical here, Overall the images are good again, I have a gripe with the overall formatting, the bottom one although very funny is write small and cannot be enlarged like the others - its the weakest link.|
|Miscellaneous:||5.5||Great concept to work from, needs a lot more work in my view, particularly on the prose and formatting front. I find the whole Kremlin and Russia issue quite interesting, the criticism is based on what I would say to myself if I were to take over the article from here. I think this is a promising article, I hope you continue to work with this one.|
|Final Score:||31.5||I hope I've been more helpful than your last review - should there be anything else, do not hesitate to leave note. If there’s any desire to collaborate I would be interested in contributing to this one:)|
|Reviewer:||— Sir Sycamore (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)|
I've had a go at making some bits read better and I've obliterated the main bulk of the policies section, which was rubbish.
Some of your points confuse me. You say I could go for a more straightforward encyclopedic style, when that's what I thought I did. It's certainly nothing like Observational Comedy. Furthermore, in two years of writing on the site, this is the first time I've ever come across any sort of image-placing convention. Some do it your way, others do it in my alternating-side style. Admittedly, the article may look different on different computer screens. Do the images overlap on yours? -- 16:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- The vast amount of featued content on Wikipedia, will align in the way I've described, very long articles will often stagger images - waht i've suggested is not a convention (nor is the the opinion of my reviews:)), but here I felt that the second image forced the section title over, and though I felt the image aligment would benefit from the formatting I descibed above. With reagrds to writng style, it is not strightforward encyclopedic - you write like as if you are are talking to a persons rahter than describing a state of affairs/ or using expamples to fill out point and develop cohiesive views/points etc - as I said this can be fine as in RAHB's article where it was used to great effect; however here I flet that being a little more rigid encyclopdic would add to the humour. — Sir Sycamore (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)