Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Laws of Physics(2st opinion)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
|Concept:||5||The subject matter has the potential to be funny, and I don't think your "take" on it is bad. Additionally, you avoided the temptation to add random "humor." But, the execution could use some work. Basically, this article is not much more than a one-trick pony. Basically, I get the feeling that the article is build around a 7 item list.
Now, generally, I don't like lists, but I think it works in that type of article. Actually, I'd suggest you make that list as long as is possible, without rambling. I would suggest basing the article on Laws of Anime Physics; borrow what is funny and learn from its mistakes. For example, the "Origin" section of that article is far to random and memey, the overall "concept" of you're article's "background" section is much better. (Granted, the execution could use some work).
You will probably need to re-work some of the supporting material. I can detect some hints at embryonic "randomness" (i.e. unfunny factual errors). For example, silicon valley didn't exist in the time the Warner Brothers. Try to avoid unnecessary anachronism. As a rule, be as close to the truth as possible, except when deviating from truthfulness is funny.
|Prose and Formatting:||5.5||I don't see any major problems, except of the lack of sub-headers. However, you article is still a border-line stub, and I am generally hesitant to give short articles high formatting scores. I really don't see any header that should be a sub-header right now, except maybe the "Where Are They Now?" header. (Yes, I do know that is not a sub-section of the previous section. However, it is more of an atheistic issue. It is generally better to have slightly arbitrary header/sub header relations than to have an excess of header sections. Also, that section could use some fleshing out. But, doing so without significantly expanding the main list will do more harm than good.)
Some other minor issues:
|Images:||6||The image is funny, but I think you'll need more. Right now, you'd probably want one at the top on the right. Generally the first pic (what I call the header pic) should show the subject matter, and should generally be relatively deadpan/restrained.|
Intro & Conception: I think this is your worst section. I generally like a "deadpan entry", but this section just gives off a "too random & too dry at the same time" feel to it. I get the feeling that you might be filibustering here (i.e. typing just to add space.) I would suggest trying to write it a bit more encyclopedic tone, and probably shorten it. Also, that section probably isn't the best place for jokes, and it might work better deadpan. You could try having some jokes in there, but the reader might not "get" them that early on, before the main list.
If you article does get longer, a "pre-list" like the "Tsoa's Studies" section in Laws of Anime Physics might work before the main list. However, you'll need alot more material
The Seven Laws of Physics This is the heart of your article, and I would suggest expanding this section as much as possible. If this section is too short, your article might get a filibustering feel to it. (I.e. the reader will get the feeling that is all header and conclusion, with little real substance.] You might also want to say more on each item; but don't ramble or filibuster.
Rest of the Article I would also advise expanding this section, or reworking it. Right now, it has the feeling that your covering the material too quickly, and skipping around. [Notice the short paragraphs and sections. If you find that you are writing short paragraphs and/or sections, and you can't combine them, it is generally a sign that you're covering the material too quickly.]
|Improvability Score:||6||Improving this will mainly consist of adding more funny items to the list. You'll need a lot of items, like 30 or more.
Also, you might want to consider changing the title to something like "Cartoon Laws of Physics". I can see how there is some humor in having it named simply "Laws of Physics", but, you might "disappoint" the reader with the current title.
|Final Score:||26.5||Expand main list.|
|Reviewer:||--Mnbvcxz 06:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)|