Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Giant Hadron Collider
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Puca-mor 14:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
|This article is under review by|
Sayeth Gerry: shotgun!!
|Humour:||5.7||average of humor scores
a decent opening, not straying too far away from the facts. you're treading on thin ice with the kitten huffing references, though, that stuff's been done to death. the link to this guy has been done a million times, too. well let's read on...
hmm you seem to redefine 'GHC' here. also, i abhor bad acronyms, and i'm afraid 'grue hiroshima collider' falls into that category. the line about the greeks has a good underlying premise, try to draw that out. the quote feels out of place and stuck-on.
pretty random here, it's like you took the wikipedia article and insterted random words and phrases. things like bombing the argentinians don't really have any relevance to the article.
you kind of dive of the deep end of kitten-huffing here, but it isn't so bad as to elicit a groan or eye-roll. the concept of kittens as fuel is done decently well, especially the last line about the SPCA. however, long equations and symbol gibberish aren't very funny.
you finish suprisingly well. the giant pirate and destruction of hawaii was unnecessary, but the shrinking of scientists got quite the laugh out of me. i like the buildup from 'boson' to 'orlando bloom', that was well done.
|Concept:||4.5||2.5/5 points for a subject that doesn't really exist, but bears a close resemblance to an existing article.
2/5 points for execution. you don't really have a clear theme to the article. you change the GHC's name, wander in and out of relevant subjects, and mention bombing foreign nations. if you're sporking the wikipedia article, have similar sections with relevant content. i had great success using this technique in Alaska and Red Baron. just take the section, skew it, and make it funny. for example, the kittens as fuel can be funny, but the weird start-up stuff is not. try to be consistent on how you skew the content.
|Prose and formatting:||4||your grammar and spelling were fairly bad, although i'm not sure if that's intentional in some places, so i haven't penalized too harshly (or gone through and corrected any for you). everything seems extremely jumbled together, with images, templates, and quotes being thrown about. try to cut down on the 'extra' stuff, and add more content to your article, in order to offset the images.|
|Images:||6||i might say that you have too many images for your article. unless you significantly expand it, maybe get rid of one or two. the captions for the orlando bloom and kitten silo images are good, try to make the rest like that.|
|Miscellaneous:||2.1||averaged. i then deducted 3 points for noticing that the article is actually titled 'giant hard-on collider'. you didn't even mention this in the article, and in my opinion it's pointless and bad crude humor.|
|Final Score:||22.3||what i suggest doing is moving your article to Large Hadron Collider. this artile exists, but it is terrible and i have nominated it for deletion. if it is deleted, i think your article would work better as the parody of the thing it's parodying, rather than something made up. i recommend reading HTBFANJS, especially just before you read over your article, as i find it helps me see new jokes and ways to improve existing ones. i wish you good luck, and offer my further assistance. should you need it, just pick up the Gerryphone and dial 30.|
|Reviewer:||19:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)|