Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Laws of Physics (lost count of which rewrite. Who do I think I am, Walt Whitman?)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 22:24, August 26, 2009 by PuppyOnTheRadio (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Laws of Physics

The Great Lung Sphincter of Nebuchadnezzar 22:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Prose and
  Formatting:

The writing style,
spelling, grammar,
layout and overall
appearance.
5.5 There has been a few mentions I've seen recently in VFH and in PEEreviews about the length of an article/UnNews/Review. I have tabulated all these discussions and gone through an in-depth analysis of all of the arguments, both to and fro. With the help of advanced calculation software, I have determined that the optimal length for an article is 3,582 characters, generally with a Fleisch-Kincaid reading level of 1.24. The upper quartile of these is...

Okay, so that is a load of hairy bullocks. The right length of an article is determined by a purely subjective factor. If I have trouble keeping my attention on it the whole way through - no matter the quality of writing - then my feeling is the article is too long. If I finish an article and say to myself "Is that it?" then an article is too short.

In this case you're looking at well too short. The layout is simple and effective, the writing style is suitable for the topic, and the spelling and grammar seems fine (although I haven't gone through with a fine tooth comb on that one.)

The other major issue I have with this is the listy nature of the article. When you get down to it this is at it's core a list with a well written and extensive introduction, and a good outroduction.

Concept:
How good an idea
is behind the article?
6 it's a good concept, although I've read a very similar concept article before. Admittedly there are differences, however the Warner Bros approach to physics has been lampooned since before I was alive. This doesn't make this a bad concept, but it does lose originality. The only way to make up for a derivative idea is usually to counter it with fantastic writing.

I did have a slight issue with the categories you chose in the end. This article doesn't appear to be self-referential and doesn't look like a Warner's cartoon.

Humour:
How funny is it?
Why is it funny?
How can it be funnier?
6.5 Good jokes, although slides off a little into in-joke territory (dump the mention of the gnomes in the text, but keep it in see also) and a little random humour. The key to random is consistent. If the brothers ate Albert, how could he then go on to do something else? This could work well if the brothers were subject to the same physical laws that their creations are.

The list of laws is good, but I'd change them to a level 5 header and have a one paragraph blurb under each of them. I'd also suggest throwing in some math nonsense to make it read more like a physics text book.

Images:
How are the images?
Are they relevant,
with good quality
and formatting?
6.5 2 good images - good balance between image and text. If we extend the text then you'll need to add more images. Maybe a 100 - 150 pixel thumbnail for each law? If it's in 4:3 or 16:9 format even better. (The dimensions of a movie screen or a standard TV)

The other thing is a major aspect of this article is the story of the brothers themselves. But they're not pictured. I have in mind one of those stilted family portraits, in B&W or sepia. The other thing I have in mind is a caricature of the same concept, with characters being extremely gangly, and another short and squat, etc. The image will make your four brothers really stand out. You can extend the cartoon metaphor as much as you like - in front of an old shop with ACME written in large letters.

And final note, to go from great to excellent, if each law was illustrated by an animated gif/swf straight from the cartoons themselves.

Miscellaneous:
The article's overall
quality - that indefinable
something.
6 Overall good potential, but just a little stubby. This is something that can be worked on and expanded to get it from good to fantastic.
Final Score:
How much can it be
improved and what
are the most important
areas to work on.
30.5 By the way, stubby is Australian slang for a small bottle of beer, or a pair of work shorts. Either way not a bad thing, depending on your legs.
Reviewer: Pup t 22:23, 26/08/2009
Personal tools
projects