Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Generic Dog
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
|Concept:||7||Overall, the article is well written, and is safely in the good or above average range. However, the article seems more witty than funny, if you know what I mean. I would compare it to my article Ussher: it doesn't have anything wrong with it, and is decent as satire of a legitimate subject, but isn't funny.
I can't quite put my finger on what is wrong with it. Maybe the introduction needs some work. The reader really doesn't get "into" the article. You basically start with the thesis statement of your article, which is basically a rouge punchline. Its not a stupid rouge punchline, but still could said better. You probably might want to add some set-up for that, so it comes across as a joke rather than a rouge punchline.
Your article is also shorter than it looks. It is only 3.5 kb long, which is very short for an article. If you expand the existent material, it might come across as less "choppy". As it sits, it is too dry rather than too random, so you may be able to add a little silliness. An article should be over 6 kb before it considered "not stubby." There really is no maximum length to an article, in fact, the 2nd longest article on the wiki, (behind an article that is long for the sake of being long) was recently featured.
Your article ends with a list. Normally, lists are discouraged, but this is a list in parody of an actual list, so it would be appropriate. You probably know that already though.
|Prose and Formatting:||7||I see no major formatting errors. However, there are several short paragraphs. Short paragraphs generally mean you are covering information too fast. This would be especially true if you have difficulty combining existing paragraphs. If you can combine paragraphs easily, the problem is likely lack of source material, which I don't think is true in this case. As I already mentioned, your article is short, and needs to be longer.|
|Images:||6||The first image is appropriate. The image of Pluto, however, seems somewhat out of place. You probably need at least two images. However, obvious nothing comes to mind at the moment. Another silhouette might work, it would be consistent, and picturing a specific generic dog ruins the joke. However, another silhouette might also come across as repetitive.|
|Humour:||6||This article, as I mentioned, is more witty than funny. Wikipedia articles are a valid subject to satirize, but not everyone reads wikipedia, and this site has long ago expanded beyond a simple Wikipedia parody.|
|Improvability Score:||8||I would suggest you expand on what you have, try to add a few sentence to each paragraph, especially a single-sentence paragraphs. This article is fairly good as it sits, so I would recommend you work on it, unless you have trouble expanding it. It probably has the potential to be featured.|
|Final Score:||34||Please contact me on my talk page, as my watchlist is absurdly long. Also, you may wish to withdraw your pee review request at the fork.|
|Reviewer:||--Mn-z 16:43, February 14, 2013 (UTC)|