Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Latios and Latias (2nd Review)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
OK, I got a review the first time, scored 38/60 and sent it to VFH, and everybody voted it out. Now, can you vote this article good again? If you don't, you will be eaten.
- Review coming up. --Nachlader 13:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Done. The previous review gave you a 38 out of 50 by the way. Doesn't make it any better though, it only shows proof of why the previous reviewer obviously wasn't any good with numbers. --Nachlader 22:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
|Humour:||2||This is the third time I've taken up one of your review requests. I've given you advice that has been certified as in-depth and with your new article, I can safely say I doubt you've learnt a thing from what I've said. The first two reviews, I'm sure you remember, were a scathing (if I do say so myself) outlook on your articles. In fact, if I remember correctly, I could only give you advice for future articles, since you appear to have an uncanny (and undesirable) knack of choosing concepts that are overly farfetched and possess no promise or value for further contributions whatsoever. The same is applied to this article.
This article did not come off as humourous to me. Even if my monitor threatened to shoot itself unless I at least emitted one guffaw at a word in this article, I wouldn't have complied. This is a regular feeling that I get whenever I read any article you've produced. The ideas you produce generally do not come off as workable either.
So despite having done this twice now, I'm going to review this article and then offer suggestions for the future. Sure you're leaving more articles behind you than a serial killer can leave bodies, but looking up is what counts.
|Concept:||2||It's befitting that this concept is related to Christianity, because God knows what you are talking about. The actual topic is mildly based off Pokémon and I know my fair share of the franchise to understand a few jokes, but this just isn't a concept. A plan for an article is not conceived by taking any topic and then mixing it up with Jesus (et al) references (as well as going the full hog), that is just random, and lacks originality of any kind. Someone who'd know what they were doing would probably study the topic first or ensure they know enough about the subject, then see how humour could be applied, without going nonsensically random and start linking it to the J-man.
It seems to me that you are trying to get involved in Uncyclopedia via the most overused means possible, in this case, by incorporating Gods and whatever into it. At the foot of the article, you've used not only the original "Greek Mythology" template, but also the alternative huge version. That's more than teetertottering on ridiculousness. You've also added the "Jesii" template, which is so overused, they've had to make another template for "Unwanted Jesii". And then the last image in the article is the splash of blood, that follows censored text in which, for some reason unbeknowst to myself, the author is supposed to have died. Three techniques there that I've seen a thousand times already in this site. It's nothing new and there are very few articles in which the splash of blood image, the "author-is-now-dead" gag and the censorship format tools actually work. There are also too many memes in your article that I'd dare want to mention. You could rise above this sort of thing if you tried!
The best way to produce a decent concept is really think about it. Honestly, that's been the secret all along. All you need is a great understanding of what you are writing about. For example, in HowTo:Boil an egg, the article does very good impressions of several famous chefs. The author would've been a keen chef him/herself maybe. Or they actually were ignorant about the chefs in the first place, but decided to read up about them first. If you read the aforementioned article, you'll see that the author got by without having to resort to any Hitler jokes. What's more, I don't even know that much about cooking, yet I found the article hilarious, intelligent and well thought of. That's the kind of planning you need to work for.
So forget Jesus/Hitler/Japan related jokes, forget the memes and the overused jokes; THINK about the topic. PONDER how it could be funny. WRITE the damn thing. And then you'll have a basic understanding of how to conceive a decent article.
|Prose and formatting:||3||Not much content considering the number of images and formatting. Or, it's the other way around and there is too much images and formatting for the content. Whichever which way, you'll need to boost the content to justify the degree of images and templates, OR, cut down on the number of images and templates. The introduction is so small, it's like a thin, sickly chicken that supplies a minisicule amount of meat. Along with that, the introduction doesn't explain jack shit about what I'm about to expose my poor eyes to.
You seem obsessed with templates. I counted six templates, seven if you include the steamroller at the top, but I've no idea if you added that or not. I don't think I focused on templates in the last review so I'll just say this now; masses of templates are not funny. Just one is enough, even for the longest of articles (and this article is waaay too short for six templates, let alone seven, anyway) and the only reason you see such articles having so many templates is because they are the usual hunting grounds for newbs who find the topic too funny to not get involved (the article on Oscar Wilde used to be this way until they made two seperate articles on the meme and the actual person).
As for the content, it seems you should be able to write so much more in an article that is about not one, but two Pokémon. All I get in this article is a red link to when they were born, some made up words that consist of religious titles having a "Poké" prefix put at the front, some random stuff along with Jesus, some memes in relation to their children and where they went when they died, and then the rest of it is cockblocked by totally unnecessary censor formatting. Then the final section is... Well, I'd rather talk about the time I got a large splinter in my foot and the gruesome appointment with the doctor (and a scapel) that followed than talk about the third section which appears to be the usual overused stuff. However, this story isn't overused in the least, so I'll talk you through it:
Once, when I was 12, I walked barefoot in this room in our house, however the floor was of pretty old wooden boarding and I was unlucky enough to step on a large splinter. It just slid in and left me with a slight limp. I ignored it. A few weeks later, my limp was becoming more evident, and my teacher at the youth hostel my class were staying in at the time asked me why I was limping. I told her what happened, and she immediately said that I needed to go to hospital to have the large splinter taken out before it became infected, in spite of the time being 11pm. So off we went to the hospital, walking all the way and we had to wait three hours (until 3am) for the doctor to see us. Eventually, the doctor saw me and a scene involving quite a lot of blood, hysterical screaming, some laughing gas that didn't work all followed. I was quite relieved when the doctor got the splinter out, she showed it to me, as if I had just been in labour and the splinter was my newborn baby. She threw it away though. I went back home safely.
Anyway, you see why I don't want to talk about the third section. And then there's the images...
|Images:||3||The first image is of something I've never seen before. I don't know what this "Ralts" is, so I'll ignore that. The second image is of the last supper, of which there are plenty of parodies already in Uncyclopedia. Once again, don't use an overused scene. The third image is... Well, let's ignore that too, shall we? (On a serious note, most of the time, pictures like that are utterly unfunny). And then the fourth image is overused.
Roughly, don't use pictures that the reader almost certainly will have no idea what is supposed to be going on (image number one), don't use an image of an overused topic in Uncyclopedia (image number two), don't use vastly uncomforting images of sexual scenes (especially not hentai/yaoi) and don't use an overused image. It seems it only took you five minutes to get those images, pre-selected, pre-uploaded or pre-made by others and none of them made by your own hand.
An article looks great if you can edit your own pictures, or at least use new images. I've always done that in the images I use. As for editing, it doesn't matter if you only have MS Paint, just don't upload any pixellated crap and you'll do fine. The images I used in Golf War were edited using MS Paint. Keep that to yourself.
|Miscellaneous:||2.5||Avera- Actually, pity.|
|Final Score:||12.5||Please, please show proof that you're listening to what I'm saying here. The articles you've produced since the Philippine Empire thing have shown no improvement whatsoever.
I'm also using this space to advise you not to self-nom each one of your articles upon completion. Also, try and improve your article first before immediately asking others for help.
|Reviewer:||--Nachlader 22:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)|