Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/HowTo:Be stupid and Not Just Funny

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit HowTo:Be stupid and Not Just Funny

vladimirKruscecev 23:04, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's my quick review. I hope some of its information is helpful to you, but I make no claims to expertise or anything like that. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 00:52, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
Humour: 4 It appears that you made this article intentionally bad, as if you were trying to do something in the style of stupid and not funny. However, the direction of this article is scattered, and it is not categorized as Intentionally Bad. The article starts out random, instead of starting out normal and de-escalating into random, which would have improved the humor. Pure randomness by itself is not terribly funny. This article really needs a focus to improve its humor.
Concept: 2 Not original, a page with this same name with different capitalization and better execution already exists here on Uncyclopedia. Also, the title suggests a guide, not an example, disappointing the reader. A disappointed reader is NOT what you want, trust me. Disappointed readers tend to list articles on VFD or tag them for FFW.
Prose and formatting: 5 Numerous spelling and grammar errors, and listy format make this article difficult to read. If you were trying to write a normal article, this would mean a score of 1. However, for an intentionally bad article, that is probably exactly what you would want to do, so I am giving the benefit of the doubt.
Images: 8 Good use of images, especially the baby representing the overused cliche of Hitler in stupid but not funny articles, and the use of an MS Paint image.
Miscellaneous: 4.8 Definitely stupid but not funny. Disappointing to read, needs more work and should be categorized appropriately if intended to be an example. Employs numerous techniques for being stupid but not funny such as excessive irrelevant quotes, listy formatting, old overused cliches, and the kind of spelling and grammar that deserves eye-bleach. The article ideally should start strong, then deteriorate into garbage, but starts bad and remains bad instead. Finally, as mentioned above, the article really needs a sense of direction to make it coherent, which currently it is not.
Final Score: 23.8 Overall, needs improvement or else evidence in the article that it was intended to serve as a bad example. As it stands, this article is in imminent danger of VFD or FFW tagging. Since the title suggests a guide, the article should appear to be a guide, at least at the beginning. Starting out bad usually results in the reader quickly moving away from your page.
Reviewer: -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 00:54, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools