Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Fucktard

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Fucktard

Fanwandango 16:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Humour: 6.5 This is a funny-by-potential score. I think you hit funny spots, but the reality to me is that the whole article is little more than an unfocused rant and does not give that all-important encyclopedia feel. The comedy of it will be exponentially enhanced by reworking it into a better article.
Concept: 6.5 It's a very good concept, and has oodles of potential. But this treatment needs a lot of work. There are focus issues galore. It rants and raves mercilessly, which in and of itself might not be terrible, but with no ostensible "articliness" to it, it just loses us.
Prose and formatting: 2 This is where you suffer the most. Outside of the many grammar, spelling and sentence structure issues, the article formatting issues abound. A colloquial approach here is just fine, but there is a marked difference between a well-designed colloquial approach and mere bad writing. I can show examples of what I mean if you like.
Images: 4 The images themselves are fine, and even provide good comic support, but they are badly placed. Thumbs are always preferable, and not in the middle of the page. Also, captions are needed to complete the image effort. Look at actual Wikipedia articles and the VFH articles here for examples of good image inclusion formats.
Miscellaneous: 5 This actually seems too high, whatever this score means. It's just a feel - I guess the potential for a nice article here bears the greatest weight of this score. But there is a lot to do here.
Final Score: 24 The most important areas to improve here are the formatting and the focus. You rant about the many things that you hate about people's opprobrious behavior - this is what this article amounts to. Now, I personally don't have a problem with this idea per se, but it's a tough sell here, and especially the way you have done it. Try strengthening it by formalizing your approach and implementing better writing practices.
Reviewer: TPLN 20:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


I found this review quite unhelpful. I am all for constructive criticism but this seemed to bypass the productive and go straight for the denigration The entire tone is condescending (such as the use of the word opprobrious). As a result of this review I have changed the offending page back to the previous submission. Please try and remember that people are trying to have a go here and posting on uncyclopedia may be the first time that they have seen any writing posted. I would also like to point out that all the images were captioned but you needed to hover over the image to see, I prefer this effect to the thumbs. Fanwandango 22:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if you were not happy with the review, however, in re-reading it I don't see any instances of denigration. I see encouragement for the potential of the concept. Your entry was certainly far better than the old version that you have reverted it to - this previous version I would have severely "denigrated".[1] Also I see constructive and productive advice in the low-scoring sections that I am certain I am not alone in feeling. Pee Review is not the happy cuddle club, as I have well learned and appreciate. The aim of it is to improve quality.

However, if you did not find this helpful, the appropriate thing to do is resubmit for a second opinion. For instance, even if you prefer a particular effect, as you say, you should give consideration to others' views, especially if you are the only one doing it that way. So getting a second opinion about that may be helpful. There is some value to cultural conformity.

I hope not to discourage, but to encourage improvement. Sometimes this is a delicate task, but it can be productive if you are truly all for it. I usually qualify review statements with "I feel" or "I think" disclaimers, because humor is always subjective. I don't believe format, grammar or spelling is negotiable, however. And I misspell a lot. I do apologize if my tone comes off condescending, I assure you it isn't intentional - it's just my way of expression that seems to rub you wrong. So my sincere apology for that. As I indicated in the original review, I do applaud your effort and hope you can make it better.

  1. In fact, I wanted to link to this article from my Running of the Bulls article, because it was funny (as I implied no less than three times in the review), but when I saw that you replaced that old piece of trash, I was disappointed.

--TPLN 23:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools
projects