Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Limp Dick
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
I noticed there was an article on erectile dysfunction, but I felt I could make a better article looking at a mock (that is, not my own) personal case. I will appreciate constructive cricitism very much. Nachlader~ 20:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
General Reaction: Fairly Good article on a rather crass subject.
|Humour:||7.5||Humor is good overall; however, it relies too much on crassness and shock value in order to be funny. That is generally frowned upon. You really can't do much about this due to your subject matter. You probably should expand the article, its a little short right now.|
|Concept:||6.5||I don't really like the "half crazy person narration" format; however, you did it fairly well. You might want to change the article name to something a bit less crass, like maybe make yours a rewrite of Erectile Disfunction. Limp dick just sets a bad tone, and comes on too strong. As a rule, you should start out tame/deadpan and go more outlandish as the article progesses.|
|Prose and formatting:||8||Grammar looks ok overall, plus the use of formatting for emphasis is good; however, you do capitalize words that do not need capitalized on a few occasions, and I think you have a few spelling errors. The word right after an ellipsis generally shouldn't' be capitalized unless it starts a new sentence, or at least of long phrase. You might want to add a see also section at the end, the white space at the end at a little to the ugliness.|
Looking over this article the first time, just looked "ugly" i.e. it just didn't look right. I first thought that might just be due to the first person perspective and "required" formatting techniques, i.e. your need for frequent headers. However, looking closer, your article really does have some minor ugliness issues. For example, you have too much white space at the bottom, and your short paragraph format is only making that stand out even more.
I went ahead and did some quick fixing of the article to get rid of its ugliness; you might want to undo some stuff if it just doesn't "look right" to you.
If you care, the 8 score is from what it looks like now with the clean-up. Before, it would have been about 7.
|Images:||6||Images are ok, but they don't really contribute anything independent to the article. Its sort of like they are there just because pics are supposed to be in an article. Generally, you should have at least one image in an article that would be funny alone, with only its caption.|
|Miscellaneous:||7||average of other scores.|
|Final Score:||35||If your trying for a highlight with this article, your facing an uphill battle due to its rather crass subject matter. It is not a complete exercise in futility, though.|
|Reviewer:||--Mnbvcxz 00:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)|