Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Erwin Schrödinger

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Erwin Schrödinger

Grammmamslam (talk) 16:37, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

Humour: 6 As Reverend noticed on his talk page, your main joke is about Erwin's evilness. I do not really understand this. Did you make this joke just because he is Austrian? I think this is your main problem. There are many parts that I liked but they should be developed.
  • Erwin is most famous because of the Schrödinger's cat. So I expected more of it.
  • The equation part was very good but you did not explain its use, how come he worked it out, etc.
  • "Shrödinger's kettle" was my favorite part. The kettle never boils when it is being watched.
  • Erwin "Catastrophe" Shrödinger says nothing to me. Why is it so? Why do you consider him a catastrophe?
  • "Personal life" is not bad. But there was too much of cat murder.
Concept: 6 Your main problem here is what Reverend wrote and what I stated in the humor part. You lie too much. If someone types Erwin Schrödinger on Uncyclopedia, he will expect an article about his cat and Quantum Mechanics, not about Hitler and Stalin.
  • Good joke about "Quantum Economics". But is there any reason why you connect the famous scientist to economics? If yes, you have to explain it.
Prose and formatting: 9 'Encyclopediness' is good. Grammar is correct (especially after Reverend's proofreading service) and I have added several full stops and gaps myself.
Images: 7.5 I am glad to see that you are very good at choosing images.
  • The first one is very funny and does not need a comment (I think you understood that).
  • The second one is also funny but the comment is irrelevant: this is an example of how evil he was, for this see "Humor" section.
  • The third works only with the article in its current state: it tells that Erwin helped the society and which can be funny. But as the joke about his evilness should also be worked on, this means that the comment to the picture should be changed afterwards.
  • And the fourth one is also very good, The problem is that you don't explain the scheme and what it means and what it stands for. This is why the reader may not find it funny. For this, you can create a new section or explain it in, for example, "Quantum Economics".
Miscellaneous: 7.1 Your average score.
Final Score: 35.6 I see you are a new user here. Well done! This is a good article but needs more work! Your concept should be changed a little bit. I hope that you will become a great writer.
Reviewer: Anton (talk) 08:50, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
Personal tools