Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/F-Bomb

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit F-Bomb

This article isn't completely mine. I just made some edits.

2h3n9l1 13:00, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

I got it! --PaizuMaj. • JStwMUNLOBCrapWHORE • (Talk) 15:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind, I don't have time to do this. Anyone else, feel free to review in my place. —Pelozurian (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Been toying with this for days and finally started.                               Puppy's talk page00:40, June 5, 2009 Thursday, 05:21, Apr 22 2010 UTC


Prose Concept Humour Images Misc Score Summary

edit Reviewer details:

A little bit about the reviewer before we start.

Hi. I'm PuppyOnTheRadio. I've written around 50 articles over the last 9 months that I've been here, of which about 20 of them have been featured. I've also done a lot of other things while I've been here, including over 50 PEE reviews, numerous templates, winning awards, and other stuff. I'm also known as a pervert and a vote whore. I have a few things that I'm working on at the moment that I'm trying to get featured, so when you see one of my articles up for VFH, feel free to vote for it.

edit Prose and Formatting:

How good does it look and how well does it read? 5

{{{Pcomment}}}

Writing style

Even without knowing that you added about half of the writing to this, it is plainly obvious that this has been written by at least two people. Part of that is the concept issues, which I'll get on to there, but the other half is the change in the writing style. What you have added to the article is good, for the most part, when reading the style. It is funny, and encyclopaedic. You've taken this from a second person to a third person perspective, and - although disjointed - it is written well.

It would pay to do a substantial rewrite on the initial half of this, or even feel free to remove it all together, as it really comes into it's strength towards the latter half of the article where the F-bomb is being referred to as though it were a literal bomb. If you are writing to grab the attention of someone on the internet - and you are writing comedy - you have to come out hard and fast, as if you take too long people will simply click away from your page, and it will go sadly unread.

Spelling

A few spelling issues.

  • Allegience - Allegiance
  • derilict - derelict
  • highschool - high school
  • aluminium - aluminum (The original is okay if you use UK or AUS spelling, the latter for US.)
  • oppurtunity - opportunity
  • emmited - emitted
  • commited - committed
  • dissapointed - disappointed

One thing I would suggest strongly is running this through a spell check, and choosing a suitable dictionary for your piece. The phrase "humour center" for instance would read in US as "humor center" and in the UK "humour centre". I'm assuming that you are going toward US spelling, given that you refer to American-centric concepts such as the AIA image and the Pledge of Allegiance.

Grammar

Okay, I have to admit that I've run this through a spelling and grammar check. One thing that it has picked up is the sentence F-Bombs were traditionally dropped. It doesn't like the sentence because it uses a verb in the passive voice, which is a nice rule to know but not a hard and fast one to stick to. My problem with it is that it is a stub of a sentence. A better phrasing would be, for me The traditional form of deployment for an F-Bomb is for it to be dropped onto it's target. It makes the sentence a little easier to understand, and gives a more encyclopaedic feel.

  • more vulnerable subjects suffered - subjects that are more vulnerable suffer or subjects that were more vulnerable suffered
  • It was because of this that its use was banned. - The F-Bomb has been banned as a direct result of these findings.

I'm not going to continue going through the rest of the article, but it definitely does need some work on sentence structure.

Layout

No major issues with layout, but nothing that makes me think WOW either, so that's a good average. A little over-usage of images, but I'll come back to that.

Overall appearance

Overall it's not a bad attempt for a first full article in regards to the writing style and format. I've seen much worse, and nothing that you did made me cringe, so that's a good average.

Minor changes would bring this up to a 7 score fairly easily. I'd suggest that you also make use of UN:PROOF before you look at this being nommed for highlight.

edit Concept

How good an idea is behind the article? 5

Taking a common saying or a piece of slang and twisting it to mean something completely different is a good start to a concept. It's what was used to make Stereotype work as well as it did. (There are other examples of that but they slip my mind at the moment.)

One thing that is important in this is to be consistent. HTBFANJS#When Writing Nonsense, be Consistent has a bit to say about this. If the F-Bomb is to be believable as a weapon then it can't be something that happens in schools. If there was a study into F-Bombs let off in schools and that lead to the discovery of F-type radiation, and the F-type radiation was shown to have all these neato effects, and they then worked out a method of reproducing this F-type radiation on a large scale (the exact details of which are a closely guarded military secret, however we will reprint them here as part of our Neutral point of view) and that then lead to the creation of the F-Bomb Mark 2, known colloquially as the big fucker, and...

It is important to start off with simple nonsense that is believable and then extend the nonsense out. Saying fuck in a classroom environment has significant effect that is more then it is really worth. This is what we know, and is the point where you can capture believability. One of the greatest ever uses of this technique was by the master Douglas Adams, in Life, the Universe and Everything.

Again, the first half of this needs to be worked on so that when we get onto the second half it's not such a huge jump.

edit Humour

How funny is it? Why is it funny? How can it be funnier? 6

There are some funny moments in here, unfortunately they are buried under the confusion of the concept and the difficulty with the prose. If you have these ironed out that will make the overall article a lot funnier.

I don't have much more to say on the humour at this stage. The only thing I would suggest is trying to avoid the use of the word fuck until the very end of the article. It has intrinsic humour value on it's own that gets lost with overuse. By avoiding the word, and then tying it in with the final image that you have here, you manage to make a much more effective use of it.

Of course, I could be wrong with that as well.

edit Images

How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting? 5

F_bomb.jpg - I hate this image. It looks like a poor photoshop and having this at the opening of your article brings down the tone immediately.

Digital Nuking.jpg - I like this image, but it doesn't tie in well enough with the remainder of the article for it to really fit in. If the caption was reworked it might, but I am still not confident.

F-Bomb Insurance.jpg - I don't understand why this image is included. Kill it.

F-Bomb 1.jpg - Good image, and would work really well within the article except that you've already said that ...(t)he F-Bomb had nearly no effect on structures and buildings... You can either change the text or remove the image. The problem is of course that then you lose a lot of potential for fantastic images. I would probably change it so that in lower concentration F-rays have no noticeable effect on buildings, while still doing damage to individuals, but in higher concentration it starts to effect material objects as well.

Cursebomb.jpg - Good image - perfect for this article. I think there may be a few copies of it already on Uncyc, but still it's exactly what you want.

F-Bomb Design.jpg - Again, exactly what you want for this article. Very good image.

F-Bomb Power.jpg - Good photos, but I have an issue with the black border in the motivational poster style. First is that it effectively adds white space (even if it is black) to the page for no reason. Also means that to have the image as the right size for the article you have to lose the details in the photos. Thirdly is that images on uncyc usually are captioned by wiki formatting - what is the point in having multiple captions (unless the joke is multiple captions, and in this case it isn't.)

Superobama.jpg - I like this image, but I hate the political rays concept and I don't think this really fits in with the article.

F-Bomb Drop Pattern.jpg - I like this in a somewhat kitsch way, so I'd suggest keeping it. I'll also point out that the highest concentration of bombs appears to be the dot of the exclamation, which appears to be centred on Melbourne, Australia. Which means I'm pretty much fucked.

F-Bomb Poster.jpg - good picture, but again the motivational images thing.

F-Bomb 3.jpg - good ending for the article.

Another image that you might be interested in using is Operation Crossroads Baker Edit.jpg. It's actually one of Wikipedia's featured images and it is a classic image relating to the testing of nuclear weapons in the South Pacific.

edit Miscellaneous

The article's overall quality - that indefinable something. 5

Not much else I could have scored you really. This is a article that shows promise, but needs work to get there. I'd remove tired references like asplosion and Bill Clinton as well as references to individuals, as they come across as very in-jokey.

edit Final score

Prose
5
Concept
5
Humour
6
Images
5
Misc
5
Final Score
26

edit Summary

An overall summation of the article.

In short, you are half way to having a fantastic article, and even as it stands it's one that shows you have the ability to write comedy. Be proud of what you've done, but there's more you can do.

And please, remember that PEEing works on a suck and blow basis. Make sure you spend time reviewing somebody else's article as well.

This was a PEE review by                               Puppy's talk page00:40, June 5, 2009 Thursday, 05:59, Apr 22 2010 UTC
Personal tools
projects