Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Joe Biden Re-Revised Per Suggestions (quick)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Cleaner. Shorter. More precise...any extremely out-of-the-ordinary tangents are now only used to accentuate a greater point (such as the bloody-cult following Obama, which I wrote in order to add some spice to my quasi-satire while at the same time elaborating on the religious fanaticism of his followers). Also, how do you like the Baraka/08 Poster? I photoshopped it myself. C'mon, it wasn't that good...alright, it was awesome. No, thank YOU for the compliment...
So far, very logically coherent advice. Keep up the good work, watchdogs!:
Here's one review i received last time from some guy: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/index.php?title=Uncyclopedia:Pee_Review/Joe_Biden_(quick)&t=20090125090541
and here's the first one I received from mvcxsvswhatever: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/index.php?title=Uncyclopedia:Pee_Review/Joe_Biden_"(quick)"&t=20090115140910
hamtaro! projectjulio 03:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
update: the "War in Iraq" and "Other Controversies" sections were written by someone else whom I assume will clean it up b/c it is quite messy. But I appreciate the thought =)
- I'll try to get this tonight. --Mnb'z 19:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
First off, I'm not checking the previous reviews. I think I can review it better that way. Also, I'm reviewing the article at your last edit (by checking the history.) --Mnb'z 07:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
|Concept:||6||In a nut shell, it seems that your using the "verbal sledgehammer" too much. Also, don't be afraid to revert edits of other people if they mess up your article.
Overall, this feels too much like a hit-piece, laced with occasional over the top outlandishness. I think the external links probably aren't a good thing. They might be ok in a footnotes section, but I don't think it works as is.
I think part of the problem is that Biden is too little known right now. Paradoxically, the more facts you bring up, the more the article sounds attacky. Maybe if you make comparisions between him and Bush. You might be able to bring up his obscurity more, maybe blame it on the "liberal media" bogyman. Bringing up stuff that nobody knows about
Overall, I think this article should be short (like 6-10 kilobytes in length). I really don't think you can make it long without rambling or coming off as throwing everything and then some at the subject.
Finally, you still have couple factual errors. For example, in the article, Biden talks to FDR, yet it correctly states that Biden has a fetus during Truman's 1948 reelection campaign.
|Prose and Formatting:||7||No major errors, however, the following could use some work:
|Images:||7||The first image is ok, but the caption might need some work. The 2nd one is good. Its better than I could do, but, it probably should have the name "Barack" somewhere in it. However, the third one just seems out of place and almost random. Well, not so much random, as filler. You surely can find a pic that is more related to the subject.|
|Humour:||4.5||You have some good jokes in here, but they are overwhelmed by the attackiness and occasional randomness. Its getting better, but still needs work. I get the feeling that your trying to jab at everything that comes up. That can cause your article to come across as literary "Whack-A-Mole".
You might be able to improve it by the "friend of subject accidentally insults it" style. See Ussher for an example of this. When you do that, you can not break the style, or it won't work.
Also, the "Children" and "Most Terrible Selling Memoir" sections are way too outlandish. I'd advise getting rid of them, or totally rewriting.
|Improvability Score:||5||I think this might be a bit hard to improve. You might want to try working on other articles. If you want to work on this one, I'd suggest doing a perspective change, or some other total reworking of the article. If it turns out worse than it is now, you can always revert it.|
|Final Score:||29.5||Good luck.|
|Reviewer:||--Mnb'z 07:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)|