Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Logic gates
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Vader1941 15:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
|Concept:||4||The subject matter makes sense, but your take on it is weak. The article has no consistent theme; it basically throws out one-liners upon one-liners. The longest the article stays on one idea is about 3 lines. It looks like it could have been written by 20 people each contributing a sentence or two without regard to the overall quality of the article. For an article to work, it needs to tell a story, as it were. The means the information can't contradict itself or jump to some totally new and outlandish idea every other sentence. There is a place for outlandish one-liners, but they shouldn't overwhelm the "story" and definitely shouldn't be the story.|
Additionally, try to avoid referencing everything and everybody, bringing the Klan, Captain Kirk, and the like gives your article a memely feel to it.
Also, your article also needs to be much longer, and needs a lot of fleshing out. The amount of text in each section should be at least doubled, but don't stretch out the list. Long and random lists are not funny.
Finally, you might want to see HTBFANJS for some hints, and Uncyclopedia:Best of for examples of good articles.
|Prose and Formatting:||5.5||Your article isn't too bad in the grammar/spelling/red links department. But it could use some help with formatting. First, you might want to add a see also section at the end. That increases the article length and removes some of the stubby feel to it. Also, the images are too big, they are creating a pic on pic situation. That is where there is no space between pics, it gives off an ugly feel because it makes it look like your stuffing with images, or worse, that your relying on images in lieu of prose.|
|Images:||5||Both the images are a little too vulgar, especially with the captions. Its not the pics are too hardcore or bad in themselves, but they just have a "I'm using mild vulgarity to substitute for humor" feel to it. I'd suggest changing the caption on the second pic.|
|Humour:||3.3||Overall: 3.5 You have some funny one liners, but they are overwhelmed by the stupid one-liners and lack of any "soul" of the article.|
Introduction & Quotes: 3 I'd get rid of the quotes. Quotes are good in some instances, but not every article needs a quote. The starting paragraph should generally be deadpan or the first 2 or 3 sentences, starting out too boldly or outlandish gets off on the wrong foot. The 3 paragraphs of the introduction have nothing to do with each other, and none are particularly good, the 2nd is sorta funny in a mild-silliness-aimed-at-a-6-year-old way.
Classification: 3.5 This list should be there; however, it needs work. Don't rely on crassness as a substitute for humor. There is a place for crassness, but, as a rule, if you can maintain the humor while cutting out the crassness, boobage, in-jokes, internet memes, racism, et cetera, do so. The crap gate needs to go, its an prime example of crassness trying to be humor.
Digital logic: 3 You contradict yourself mid paragraph. That confuses your readers; if you most contradict yourself, begin the statement to be contradicted with "It is commonly believed" or something of that nature.
|Improvability Score:||4||Improvability score. Although this is notable subject matter, your really don't have any themes or good base prose in your article. This article is going to need alot of work to turn it into a good article.|
|Final Score:||21.8||good luck|
|Reviewer:||--Mnbvcxz 01:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)|
p.s. I'm going to do some code fixing here to get the table to look right. It looks like I need to use a custom pee review table to change order.--Mnbvcxz 01:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)