Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/HowTo:Write an Uncyclopedia Article Without Reading any of the Rules or Directions or Manuals or Policies First

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit HowTo:Write an Uncyclopedia Article Without Reading any of the Rules or Directions or Manuals or Policies First

I did that! I wrote an article without reading any of the whatnots! Then I went and talked to people and read some of the whatnots. So no telling me to do that. I've done that now. *glares in the general direction of a certain person* But obviously writing something is one thing; making it not suck is an entirely separate matter.

Also, I'm really bad with images, so be a good chap and give those an extra poking, will you, dear?

~ Lyrithya sig daji Lyrithya *shifty eyes* (words) (actions) -- 20100610 - 03:09 (UTC)

I can do this. ~Scriptsiggy.JPGTelephonesig Star Starsig Kidneysig06:49, Jun 16, 2010
Humour: 4.5 General Comments

First of all, your concept is inherently flawed. It may seem like a good idea when you're new here, and believe me, when I was new here I was about to write one such article, only I didn't carry it through. What you may not know is that articles like this have been done to death: Bad_articles, HowTo:Write a Bad Uncyclopedia Article, HowTo:Make an Article That Will Get Deleted, Worst Article Ever, HowTo:Write a Featured Article, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. None of these articles are good (I mean, FA material), either, and it is my personal belief that articles of this kind will never get anywhere near FA, and I think I have yet to see an article that will convince me otherwise. I would love to show you some good examples so that you know what to strive for, but I can't. That's how bad this type of article is. Obviously, that should be expected since you're writing about writing bad articles. However, don't be discouraged. Choosing the wrong concept doesn't mean you're inherently a bad writer. You just need to discard this and move on to something else.

On the other hand, I think your writing style is not that bad. Anyway, the good thing about it is its clean, not overly verbose, and easy to follow. The bad thing is that you are either too silly, or not silly enough. You have also adopted a main joke (that is, clicking on random page) and have followed it through, but you have very little else in there. However I'll say this. I think this is the best "How to write a bad article" article I've seen. I don't think there's anything more you can do here, other than add in more jokes if they occur to you.

Because your concept is inherently flawed, your jokes need to be so exceptional if you want this to be more than mediocre. The viewpoint of a rambling idiot seems to be very popular these days, though I can't really help you with that because that's a style I'll never be able to write in. Kudos for coming up with something other than "insert more chuck norris, oscar wilde, vanity, cyberbullying etc", which is what is normally expected when one reads an article of this type. For instance, spelling out "Hi" in the links could be considered slightly imaginative. And you didn't strictly violate any HTBFANJS rule, so that's good. And, correction from my first paragraph: you do know that articles like this have been done to death, as evidenced from your "see also" section. I recognise that you do have fresh jokes, but articles on Uncyclopedia need a strong concept, so making fresh jokes around a stale concept that has been done a million times are only going to ruin those jokes. So that's why, even though I can see that some of your jokes are well done, I didn't laugh.

Ok now to comments on individual jokes, business as usual etc.

  • One thing that also struck me is you never explain why someone would want to write an article without reading such and such. Is that meant to be a joke itself, or just a gap in logic?
  • "It will also behoove you to endeavour to" - hah, nice long words are nice.
  • "the buttons at the bottom" - what buttons?
  • "links, images, and organs" - something which amused me.
Concept: 3 Well, I know this is a pretty harsh review. But I hope I've given enough reasons to justify my criticism. Besides reading HTBFANJS, you should also read our featured articles. Also go vote on VFH, where you can decide for yourself what's funny and what's not. Take note of how good articles construct their concept. Some featured articles are all concept, and all jokes are extensions of that concept. That means that articles can get featured on concept alone. That's how important a good concept is. Selecting the right topic is important too, because the concept is dependent on the topic.
Prose and formatting: 9 Prose and formatting complaints:
  • turning a few words in your into links - I think words are missing here.
  • or with if you can figure out how - you can't say "with modifying the page to which they link".

See? You write very well, using cool big words and a very consistent tone. I also liked how you separated your sentences , including using different lines, it creates good comedic pacing, something which I'm bad at because I tend to have these long, run-on sentences that never stop. That means you write good. So again, don't be discouraged.

Images: 6.5 I found the first one, of the bloody noobs to be very cute, and I'm giving that a 7. I don't really care for the others, but they're not that bad, just not that funny.
Miscellaneous: 5 I give misc scores by gut feeling.
Final Score: 28 If you need anything, you can find me at my talk page. On the other hand, I realise my review is very harsh and is only my personal opinion. You are very welcome to get a second opinion if you feel like it, just by resubmitting your article to the queue.
Reviewer: ~Scriptsiggy.JPGTelephonesig Star Starsig Kidneysig11:08, Jun 16, 2010
Personal tools