From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Ok, I completely rewrote this under a variety of IPs (I'm the same guy who worked on Hotel California and JetBlue). I think I've got this one pretty well sorted out. Any and all suggestions are more than welcome. Yours truly, 184.108.40.206 18:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and I would prefer an in-depth review, if at all possible. Yours truly,220.127.116.11 21:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
|Hi there! This big ol' grin must mean this article|
is being reviewed by:
• • •
(While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider
GOING AWAY and REVIEWING SOMETHING ELSE).
(Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing
at 22:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
feel free to remove it and give Necropaxx a swift kick up the butt for being such a loser).
|Humour:||7.5||All right, let's begin. At the beginning. The Oscar Wilde quote makes no sense and maybe should be removed. However, your introduction is gold. Don't do a thing to change it.
Moving on to the first section. First paragraph nice, the second paragraph runs into some consistency issues (His teacher is Miss Quark while later on Lithium is caught "doing quark") and the first endnote has some weird grammar goin' on that kills the joke. The 1st sentence of the third paragraph, while making sense right there (and a nice joke at that), isn't backed up with his relationships. Also, you write that "it is said" that his Auntie Neutrino made him want to be cool. Firstly, how? Secondly, don't write "it is said." This is an uncyclopedia dedicated to misinformation, goshdurnit, and we oughta sound authoritative! Lastly, is Argon a diatomic? If not, it would help if the element quoted were diatomic.
Second section. The first paragraph is nice except for the second to last sentence, where the bad grammar kills the joke again. In the second paragraph, everything is good until the "?!" symbol. I would just use ?! to avoid confusion. Thrid paragraph is good too.
Third section. Very nice. I only suggest that the element who conducted the marriage be named.
Last section. Also very nice. But in the last footnote, "critically panned" is redundant. I would use "heavily criticized."
|Concept:||8||5/5 for the idea behind the article, 3/5 for the execution. The idea of making Hydrogen into a person with a biography is a very nice idea. Looking at the Table of Contents, I see you've covered all the stages of his life. This is good. My problem is that sometimes the article didn't deliver as much as I felt it could have.|
|Prose and formatting:||7||OK, your prose is fine most of the time, but it sometimes gets bogged down in poor grammar. For example: "It is not understood why Helium was not made fun of for the same reason, but it is likely her calm demeanor which impeded any reaction to her lack of "p" "d" or "f" orbitals." What is the "which" doing there?
On the subject of formatting, there are a few issues. First off, the Table of the Elements pic is very long compared the text of the article. While not totally bad, any extra templates feel gratuitous. I would remove the Wikipedia template and the Construction template. (You're about done here). And in the Table of the Elements template, the melting point and boiling point appear twice each, of which one set has leaking code. I'm afraid I can't help you there, though.
|Images:||6||This was your lowest score. Firstly, neither of your pics are funny. They both rely on the captions to make the reader laugh, which would be fine, only the captions aren't that great either. I would suggest adding a picture or two, but only if you add enough text to justify it. Add one of those 3D models of a water molecule and for a caption, I would put something like "Hydrogen and his wife Oxygen: a match made in chem. class." (The caption for the nebula pic could be changed to show his home, possibly? I'm going by the Current Life section.) The other picture could be in the same vein as the Hindenburg pic, or maybe replace it. I'm thinking H-bomb explosion, with a reference to his explosive personality (after his breakup with Lithium, maybe) in the caption.
However, all of that is no good unless you write some more words to fill the space that the pictures take up.
|Final Score:||35.6||This is a pretty good article, and with a bit of work I can see it maybe even featured. In which case I want co-authorship. What concerns me more, however, is that you haven't yet created an account. You'll earn instant respect. No, really. Create an account!|
|Reviewer:||• • • 18:56, Apr 16|
Thank you for your useful review! I have already implemented several of the changes. As for the co-writing credit... Go ahead, I don't care. Do whatever you can do improve it, and I'll be happy to give you credit. Again, thanks for your help! (Oh yeah, and per your recommendations I got an account.) YouKnowWhatTheMusicMeans 01:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)