Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Double Butter Theory

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 02:36, November 22, 2008 by Asahatter (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Double Butter Theory

Okay, first up I'm a total N00b - so be rough with me. Is this funny? -at all? (Am I typing this in the right place?)

JunkMonkey 22:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


Humour: 4 OK, I'll take a crack at this and try and get my thoughts into the right boxes, but it's gonna be hard to separate out the thoughts.

Axioms - you plunge straight in here and present the well known elements of the "theory" - it needs a set up to tell the reader what "double butter theory" is before stating this, and as they stand, they have no humour.

Standard Model. Please, lose Oscar Wilde here and find more phrases of the quality of "(though possibly noisy)" - that alone is worth the set-up.

DBT Theory. You've finally got into quasi-scientific mode, which I think this article needs. Present to facts as facts and damn anyone who could suggest otherwise. "having cats poop" let's the pargraph down, as it lowers the tone - find a better and scientific way of putting this.

Practicalities. My favourite section remains unfunny because its tone isn't consistent with the other sections. I think this and the subsequent chapter should form the basis for the article.

Future Developments. You're flexing some muscles here and giving the theory wings. Don't make it random nonsense, but suggest that billions of dollars are being spent on making a levitating toast device, if they can switch the damn thing on.

Double Butter Theory in Fiction... we should be dealing with facts here, no matter how bizarre the facts are.

Concept: 5 The whole "buttered toast on the back of a cat" gag is a well known one, and could form the basis of a decent article if it's pitched just right, and there are several elements here which verge on the mock scientific mumbo jumbo to show that the article has potential. Overall though, I just don't like the title, and am struggling to come up with a better one.
Prose and formatting: 7 On the whole, pretty good. It reads like an article and is formatted as such. Any quibbles I may have are secondary to the overall shape of the piece
Images: 8 Good stuff here, and they fit in with the direction I think the piece should take - but note my comments re. title and oveall humour. Get the article right and the images will seem funnier.
Miscellaneous: 6 Because that's how I feel. Not a disaster by any means, but a work in progress.
Final Score: 30 This could be so much worse. I'd try and turn it to pseudo-science presented as fact to give it more zing.
Reviewer: Asahatter (annoy) 02:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects