Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/H.T.C.P.C.P. II

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 12:36, August 31, 2008 by Sycamore (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


edit Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol

The first review of this was several months ago, and SysRq basically told me to go to VFH with it; it subsequently got hammered stagnant. This time, I'm pretty much looking for ways to improve it, get it over the hump so to speal. –—Hv (talk) 30/08 14:48

I'll have a look at this one, for now enjoy Noel. — Sir Sycamore (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
A Free Coupon
For a bumming session with Noel Fielding
How did this get hammered on VFH? -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
I consider anything that hits -3 hammered, personally. –—Hv (talk) 30/08 15:11
OK, that was my memory talking. I thought it hit -3, not +3. Sorry 'bout that. –—Hv (talk) 30/08 15:46
Humour: 7 Vey good stuff, I remember this one on VFH, and I thought it was a really good article. Any improvements I suggest here have to be taken with pinch of salt here - It’s not really all that flawed.
  • Intro: Unlike the rest of the article the introduction feels a little stubbish, and could be extended a little, I always reiterate the motto of say it, say it more and say it again. This is the key issue here. The prose flows nicely, it reminds me a little of a national Geographic article - this is food in some ways, it is however not all that encyclopedia, or academic. There’s few minor errors on this front, for example you cite the "Beverages and Drugs Act 2002" a couple of times - this is not quite right, I think because the rest of the article reads so well you could afford to spend the time making these references match up. Now there are quite a few of ways to do this, one is to cite them like this "Sycamore is anal"(Beverages and Drugs Act, p23, Dr Bimboo, 2002); this is sort of right, but you should have a bibliography as well giving yet more detail. The other way is to use footnotes so 1.Beverages and Drugs Act 2002. And the second time it becomes 2.Ibid as it shares the same source. I suggest using some form of referencing and quoting so as to gives some encyclopedic element - this is not necessarily like Oscar Wilde quotes here - its more about getting that professional look and it will read as if its a lot more factual as well. There a few variants of this, but some form of referencing would be a good addition.
  • First section: there are a few grammatical errors here "The governments" looks a little off; the governments of the... etc would read better. "Said leader thought" this looks pretty dodgy here, maybe the "the said leader", but that sounds like something I would write and that’s not a road to start on. The section seems a little less snappy than it could be; the best way is to have a lot more going on whilst keeping the focus of the section. You mention eastern bloc knock offs, I would bring in Putin, maybe something about coffee getting that Putin look or something. Overall no major complaints here, decent good writing.
  • Second section: I like the use pot analogies here, and this is a section that could afford some extension. As I mentioned at the beginning it's difficult t really break down good work, this could be a little too subtle, but its good stuff. I would use Memorandum (or monthly goals etc, something more "formal" cooperate sounding) as opposed to Memo as it sounds to colloquial, it fine to use some softer terms though.
  • Third section: Nice cooperate parody here, as well as the green movement. Strong material here, again it reads less well without references - it reads lot more like opinion and for a lot of the parody to work, at a glance it should seem more factual. Some of the language could be dusted off for more impact, for example throats being cut could be changed to throats being lacerated by the shards along with lead poisoning, or something along those lines. Perhaps too many bracketed text, It would be better to try and fully integrate the prose, it'll read better.
  • Fourth: this brings things to a good conclusion; I like the idea of coffee being banned and there’s a nice allusion perhaps to oil and other foreign products which the west imports. I kind of feel that this section is perhaps a lot longer than it needs to be - it kind of waffles (not in any great way though), I think it could be tightened up a little. Overall a very good conclusion. As a side not the wikipedia template seems to mash up the end, I would move it further up (I usually add it after the first image).
Concept: 7 Very good, nobody else would think to do this, and that’s really the aim. I think that it’s funny and a very good article. I think that in terms of "standard" it's a really top quality article. A concern that maybe you'll think your articles just aren’t VFH quality is something I'd do away with, VFH is not really the best way to gauge article quality - I think this should be VFH if that makes any sense at all. Nothing to complain about, a nicely original article with good style and tone.
Prose and formatting: 7 A few errors in there, and sometimes not as quick off the mark as it could be, I always find with anything I write, that 50% is writing, 50% is dusting off. I'll mention quoting and referencing again here, as I think that this would dramatically improve the article a study, journal, or Government/company press report would really make your article seem "more real" in a sense and this will draw readers in. Again, there’s a lack of a human face to connect with readers, there’s some of this in the beginning but remains absent throughout. I always aim to have charters, particularly in an encyclopedic article. Image captions are very funny
Images: 7 Very Good, I kind of felt that although relevant that the repetition was not so cool here, as the images did not really set the scene, I would maybe consider changing one of them for a broader perspective. Nothing major though, and it’s a minor gripe. Captions were funny and all are well placed
Miscellaneous: 7 Very impressive article, no major complaints or issues, I'd probably vote for if it was on VFH again.
Final Score: 35 I hope this was helpful, should there be any questions or queries, don't hesitate to leave note:)
Reviewer: Sir Sycamore (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal tools