Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/HowTo:Write a HowTo that will get featured
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
|Humour:||6||I am slightly confused on the humour front. At first glance I don't see the humour. However when I look closely I see that there could be clever humour elements in here such as point 6 on a list of how to write an article being "Don't make long lists." I refer to this humour as clever humour as you have to find it and it doesn't slap you in then face. However with this article it makes the reader search to hard. The general reader may not realise that it is funny at all. There are sporadic pockets of clever humour, that takes someone clever to find but it can bore the reader.
HowTo:Improve on your HowTo article: #Give the key away to the reader at the start, end or somewhere prominent in the article. The key is a phrase (slap in the face type phrase) that makes the reader "click" and go "oh I get the joke now." Once he has found the key he understands the rest of the humour. This would work well on this article.
Generally there needs to be more humour such as in the intro where I cannot find one joke. Some of the jokes don't make me laugh such as in the perfect or mistakes section of "Second Step" where it claims the guide will not tell you how to make an article perfect. This on its own is not funny. It needs more build up to it or simply be replaced with a different joke.
|Concept:||7||The concept is good if you are making the joke of a HowTo article on writing a featured HowTo article which is explaining how itself is being written in the process. A good example of the idea that I think you are trying to get across is shown in the article HowTo:Write An Article That Stands No Chance Of Featuring On Uncyclopedia (which ironically was featured). However I don't think the humour in your article is up to the standard that it needs to be if you are trying to portray that kind of idea (I hope this is making some sense to you).
By the way Anton, I have mentioned this several times but if an article fails VFH that doesn't mean it is deleted. You have stated the opposite in this article. If that was an intentional joke then it doesn't get to me as it isn't funny on its own. It needs more background to it. Example "If it's not good enough we put it on VFH and hundreds of admins attack the article just because someone nommed it but the admins don't care. They get payed to delete articles." A pretty shocking example and I meant nothing of what I wrote there but you get the idea.
|Prose and formatting:||7||The English has really improved Anton, well done. However:
|Images:||9||Like the images. No improvements there.|
|Final Score:||36.3||I'm not sure whether this is a serious article or a clever humorous article. If it is serious then there was no point in pee reviewing it. If it was meant to be humorous read points above.|
|Reviewer:||Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM 15:08, May 19, 2013 (UTC)|