Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Jewish Cuisine
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
The Rabbi and myself have concluded our efforts to inform the world of the dangers coming out of Jewish cooking. Feedback will be appreciated.12:34, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm in here, expect it sometime tonight or tomorrow... the end of the story in Mass Effect 2 is coming up and I may not be able to resist spending all evening ignoring my committments in order to fully pursue it. --ChiefjusticeDS 12:38, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
- I hear your pain, I'm having the same problem. 12:44, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
|Humour:||8||Right, I thought this one may be quite challenging to review, partly because of the length which means I actually have to use my brain and secondly my general ignorance of all things Jewish, thus I went into this one fully expecting to end up writing a long tirade about inaccessibility . I am pleased to say that while some parts of the article do have a tendency towards being inaccessible, the majority of the article is well written enough for this to not be a problem. The first thing that struck me was a problem regarding your warning signs, while you have used these to good effect in general and the comments you use in the sections where they are found are amusing, my problem was that given the exposure you give them at the start of the article; by placing them as you have you near guarantee that readers will pay attention to them. My feeling was that they provided a useful foothold for anyone reading the article who is as familiar as I am with Jewish cuisine, they communicate to the reader the general problems faced when eating a particular food and, though exaggerated these often made me feel better going into a section. My problem comes when you are using the warning signs well and then you reach some sections and suddenly the warning signs are not used. I was genuinely enjoying the presentation of the article as a report and you were using this to open up a lot of humour, but this seems to be suspended at a couple of points in the article. Permit me to expand, basically if you do something in the article that you build up to be used throughout then I would hope to see it used throughout since otherwise it begins to feel more like a gimmick than a useful aid to the article. My recommendation would be that you take a second look through at the sections where you don't use the warning signs and see if here is a way you could use one, if there is a specific reason that some sections should not have these signs then you could include a message in the "Legend" section. This may seem like a pretty harsh and drawn out criticism of a minor problem and to some extent this is correct, however it is my feeling that the warning signs aren't just a gimmick, their impact is significantly lessened no matter how the reader responds to them.
While the humour is generally good and I laughed a couple of times in the article there are times where it seems to vary between subtle encyclopaedic humour and informal random humour, this transition can often be rather jarring for a reader. If for example I was writing an article about Darth Vader and I was trying to make it sound like a report on his activities and I switched from detailing a massacre to talking about some rather snazzy trousers he happens to own, it would be a bit confusing. Now I realise I have written a very extreme example there, but consider in your article where you talk about Kenidalach (Kneidlach?) and then after it switch to a section on "Jewish Fighting Bagels" which, while amusing, even I, in my ignorance suspect don't actually exist, I would suggest remedying this. To remedy the problem you wouldn't have to remove the section, but you may wish to consider moving it into line with the rest of the article so it fits.
Genrerally I enjoyed your humour as I hope the score demonstrates, I have tried to focus on the trouble spots that I noticed in your article here, and I hope that you aren't left with the impression that I loathed the article. The parts you do well, in my view, are the sections where you do exactly what you set out to do in the article, my general feeling is that you go wrong when you deviate too much from the style.
|Concept:||7||OK, I think you have a good concept and I really like the idea of classifying Jewish food under warning signs usually used for toxic chemicals. The problem that I see here is that you appear to be having difficulty sticking to the concept throughout, you say at the start that it is a report into biohazard grade materials, thus does a bagel with spikes on it qualify? My recommendation would be that you try to ensure that your concept encompasses everything that you want it to, this is easier than setting yourself a strict set of lines to work within, so my suggestion would be that you go back now that you have written most of it and see whether you can change it to encompass everything. The tone does have some blips in it, I'm not going to subject you to a long talk about the encyclopaedic tone, but I would recommend that you go back and have another look and see whether you can identify points where you become a bit too informal for the tone. The points where you do deviate are limited but they are there, just make sure that you are keeping it encyclopaedic enough at all times.|
|Prose and formatting:||8||The spelling and grammar here is OK, there are a couple of problems but these are minor and can be sorted by turning your computer off and bouncing around the room, nah just kidding, with a quick proofread. I think you are easily good enough at this to be able to do this without pointers from me so I shall move on. The text is generally broken up well and this is important in an article of this length, the images do a lot to prevent the article becoming boring too and you are to be commended for doing as well as you have done. My complaints arise in a couple of places, the first is that you might want to consider breaking the text up a bit more in the "Article 252/z/3:Chollah (חלה)" section as the history section is comparatively long, especially when you look at some of the others. The image formatting is always going to be a problem in an article where you have to fit several images into a single section, where this occurs things can get a bit congested. As the article is made to look like a report I'm not going to offer a recommendation on this one and will leave a decision on how the images should be to you, my feeling was that in a few cases, such as in the "Article 2512/Z/Z: Gefilte Fish (Hebrew:דגים ממולאים)(Yiddish:גפילטע פיש)" section they look a bit untidy, and on my computer the image caption on the last image is overlapping with the text slightly, this may be because of the image you have behind the text at the bottom too.|
|Images:||9||The images are good and you have lots of them. I am only taking a mark off because of the scruffy formatting in a couple of places, you shouldn't be too concerned about the images themselves because they are pretty superb. My only complaint would be that in a couple of cases the captions for images are very long indeed, consider making the captions a bit more concise in these cases, but this is far from essential work. Good job here.|
|Miscellaneous:||8||My overall grade of the article.|
|Final Score:||40||I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this one and I think your style has a pleasing undertone of humour to it. The article is marred by some minor problems in a couple of specific places, there is no problem with the text as a whole,and I would encourage you to devote time to working out the problems in the sections I have spent the most time moaning about, my feeling was that nothing has to be cut from the article but rather the article can be adapted to fit everything in a way that provides maximum impact for the reader. If you have any questions or comments then feel free to let me know on my talk page. Good luck making any changes and well done.|
|Reviewer:||--ChiefjusticeDS 11:08, February 9, 2010 (UTC)|