Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Isaac The Tank Engine (second)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Changes made as per last review, and subsequent conversations. If you're reviewing please don't look at the previous review until you've completed as I would like you to review this with as unbiased a starting point as possible.Pup t 06:39, 28/07/2009
Alright, I don't have all that much time to do a big review but one thing I can say is I found it difficult to see what the article is spoofing. It's sort of poking fun at religion and Thomas the tank engine right? If so you may need to spoof things that A) have alot to do with Thomas the tank engine and religion (as much as possible) and B) Spoof a particular thing that alot of people are likly to know about and understand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by El Cheeso (talk • contribs)
- Please don't comment unless you're actually going to do a full review. Pup t 02:29, 29/07/2009
Yup, Chief is here to do just that. --ChiefjusticeDS 18:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
|Humour:||7||The humour is pretty good, certainly the idea of retelling one of the most famous religious stories using trains is amusing in concept alone. I think that if you are going to use Thomas the Tank Engine as a starting point for this article then you should certainly continue to try and bind it back to him. I do disagree with El Cheeso on the idea that the satire should be of something a lot of people will get, satire is fine providing it is executed correctly. But these are general, I will go through the article carefully. The first thing I noticed was the letter at the top, you have a good idea when it comes to mocking the British dialect of the time, but be careful you don't go overboard with it, it would be better the leave the dialect within the text rather than suffixing it to the end of sentences, or even in their own sentences. The set-up for the story-line is intelligent and as an aside I am very impressed with the work you must have put into researching and ensuring names are as close to matching as possible.
When you get to the actual story you satirise the biblical events reasonably well, but remember first of all that this story is set up in your intro as one for children, therefore make sure that it is dumbed down and doesn't contain adult themes or you undermine the humour in your article. The story is alright just be careful of redundancies in it. In the biblical version Jesus tells Peter that he will deny him in a separate scene and the scene is then played out as foretold, in yours the event is redundant, I even went back to check that I hadn't skimmed over it, I'm not saying "Make it like the original" but what I am saying is that you should obey a basic structure of storytelling. Finally a suggestion would be to take a couple of liberties and satirise events, you are very true to the plot and events, and it gets predictable after a while, consider throwing a couple of surprise jokes in there. Generally I like your humour and your derivatives of biblical passages with a base in trains are genuinely funny.
|Concept:||8||The concept is superb and I would be interested to know the thought process that conceived it. My issue here is the tone, you are employing the encyclopedic tone here and thus should avoid telling the story but should instead stick to narrating. Have a look at a plot synopsis on Wikipedia and take note of how they describe events, make sure that yours conforms to theirs. Otherwise your encyclopedic tone is pretty good and I'm very impressed with how it has progressed since you first started writing.|
|Prose and formatting:||9||Your prose are OK and your spelling is without many errors. Your grammar is much improved from the last article of yours that I reviewed and I'm relieved to see you taking a more proactive approach to checking your own work. A couple of grammar errors ruin an otherwise pretty flawless run for spelling and grammar. You should reconsider some of your formatting, are all the images a necessary as each other? They all sit one on top of each other and it feels as though the article is being amended pointlessly in some places. In fact have a 9 for this, 8 is a bit harsh.|
|Images:||9||The images are OK and in general feel necessary. My only criticism is that you have gone to the other extreme with them and have used too many, so some feel superfluous. Pictures are OK for demonstrating a point but you sometimes demonstrate a point that did not require it, so the image feels superfluous. This is not in serious need of amendment, but if you can identify some of the pictures that are less necessary and amend the captions, if removing pictures does not appeal, then the article will be better for it.|
|Miscellaneous:||8||My overall grade of the article.|
|Final Score:||41||Another solid article from you Puppy. Again a couple of minor points hold you back from brilliance. If you can sort those out then you should be pleased with this. Good luck making any edits. Oh and in unrelated news, good luck in NotM.|
|Reviewer:||--ChiefjusticeDS 19:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)|