Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/HowTo: Double Entendre
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
I appreciate any and all feedback on the page in its current state, upgrades coming soon.
|A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article|
is being reviewed by:
UU - natter
(While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead).
(Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole).
|Humour:||6||Keep in mind I mark with 5 as the average (revolutionary concept, but there you go) so that's "above average". I like the first half, there's some decent ideas in there. But I'm less keen on the list - not only do I not like lists in general, but it's just not funny. It's not adding anything to the article. I'm sure you could remove it and replace it with something better, see comments below.|
|Concept:||7||Fine and dandy. I think you could stand to work in a few more juicy lines into what you already have (see comments), and I think there's more you can do with it, but it's a decent idea with plenty of legs.|
|Prose and formatting:||6||Points off for the list, to be honest. The writing's fine enough (I made a couple of tweaks, and gritted my teeth and sorted the US spelling of "Maneuver" out - it looks wrong to my UK eyes, but that's just the way it is!) and there's nothing wrong with the formatting as such, but lists are lazy, they rarely add anything unless they're concise and short, and this one is neither. It's actually a bit of a pain to read.|
|Images:||5||OK, points for the wingman and plane images, they're relevant (although it should be a simple job to replace the "courage loyalty" text on the wingman one with something more "Double Entendre-ish" like "Firm Backing" or something. Actually, my suggestion is terrible, but I'm sure a little thought should give you a decent idea for that one. Points off for the Bush/Platypus one - OK, you may have a point, but it's not relevant to the article. The comment it backs up is a digression from the rest of the article, and as such, the image appears out of place. I'd find another relevant image - two planes at close quarters, perhaps? There's got to be some good pics of stunt flying in close proximity out there. Or how about midair refuelling? That's well suited to a double entendre piece....|
|Miscellaneous:||6||Averaged. It is the code of the knights of the sky.|
|Final Score:||30||Not a bad idea, and a promising start. However, it does still need work. Lose the list, please, and consider my comments below. Other than that, keep going and have fun with it!|
|Reviewer:||--Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 09:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)|
OK thoughts: as I've already mentioned, the list should go. In place of it, consider devoting more time to discussing the history of the technique, perhaps? How has it discovered? Who perfected it? How did they practice? I'm not hugely sold on the history section as it stands - the e'th century just looks like a typo, and isn't funny, while the motorboating angle doesn't work (how would it then transfer to planes?) and the description of the technique is difficult to follow. No, I'd look to explain how the technique was developed in the first world war - due to the age of the craft, the insertion had to be handled carefully etc, have fun with the names of the pilots who invented it (how ridiculous are WWI pilot nicknames?), that kind of thing.
Maybe also look to explain variations of the technique, such as the double penetration, where both you and your wingman attach the same craft - one aiming for the exhaust port? And what happens if you have no wingman and have to go it alone? Then there's existing aerobatic techniques like the "split s" and the "barrel roll" that, with care, could be discussed to fit in nicely with the theme of the article. Possibly discuss midair refuelling - there's an easy target to add!
Basically, keep on track here - discuss the technique in depth. Go deep, go hard, and try to give it some length. A thorough probing of this technique is needed. Given what you've done in the "breakdown" section, I'm sure you can rise to the challenge. So to speak.
Hope this helps a bit. If you want some more suggestions, give me a wave on my talk page, I'll see what I can do.