Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Number Bases

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Number Bases

What would you do if it was yours? Pup 02:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Pup 02:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It's early and I'm feeling brave, I guess I've got this one.--ChiefjusticeDS 05:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Humour: 5 Scoring purely subjectively the article is amusing if you can follow it, which takes a conscious effort. You have to remember that you are writing about something that most people will just look at and then exit out of, so to keep anyone interested your humour has to be good. Happily it isn't too bad, it isn't groundbreaking but it manages to do the job correctly. On this note what I would say you need to work on is to revisit some of your jokes. To say in a section that this system's name was based on a question asked by mothers to their children is ever so slightly redundant. You will meet with much more success if you satire the actual history rather than make something up. Agreed the history of numeral systems is about as interesting as watching paint dry, but I feel that if you are going to talk about a real system then you should at least ground your jokes in fact of some sort. Being completely random can defeat the point of satirising in the first place, you could be referring to anything. That said, do not go through and bulldoze all the jokes that are not obviously related, just use your initiative about it, some of your jokes are genuinely funny and others just feel laboured.

On other points, the article is very informative and any information you give is fine. I would re-consider a couple of the made up systems, if you are going to make up a couple then you should consider making them either more accessible or less cluttered and confusing, while you intend this in a couple of sections repeating the joke but in a slightly different way is less than hilarious to read. The Quinququinqudeciquinqucentimal System section *rests fingers* makes the joke first and it isn't unfunny but it isn't superb either, to then repeat a similar joke in the next section is a questionable decision. I, personally, had been hoping for a different joke in the next section, especially after I saw the picture, and was thus disappointed when the joke repeated. The repetition of the joke on Indians is fine and the more amusing recurring joke in your article, as it repeats and feels necessary, the repeat of the 'the system is very complicated' joke feels lazy rather than necessary. I know that you intend the joke to be sufficiently different in both sections and that you try and emphasise this, but the difference is not sufficient and one, in my opinion, really needs to find an alternate source of humour.

In general your jokes otherwise are fine, you write them well in an encyclopedic style and they are amusing. I applaud your ability to make an otherwise boring topic amusing with them, but it isn't your casual humour that needs the work here.

Concept: 7 The concept is fine and you generally write in the correct style for it.

OK fine.

You are writing this article in what is arguably the only tone and style that it can be written in: the encyclopedic style. Therefore you should aim to keep your tone consistent throughout. To say "This number system is very complicated, in fact even I don't remember how to do it" is - while quite funny-not encyclopedic and breaks the tone of your article. It is better to say "This number system is highly complex and every day all over the world people tie their brains in knots trying to use it, except the Indians since they invented it" This makes a similar point but does so in a way that is more appropriate for your article. The style you have used to describe base 27 does not fit at all, and I would recommend removing it from the article or at least rewriting it in a way that makes it looks like it isn't random and just bolted onto the end of the article to make it longer. If you check some of the featured article you will see some good examples of consistency, note how those authors do not deviate, yet manage to make lots of different points and jokes.

Prose and formatting: 6 Your prose are fine in general and you have done a good job breaking up the text so your article seems less insurmountable and dull. However some of your formatting does need some work, with regard to images especially. Take a look at some of your smaller images, they are indented into the text without a caption and thus seem untidy and unrelated at first glance. To actually get the punch-line you have to hover the mouse over the image, put a caption in and move the picture somewhere else so it doesn't seem to be trying to occupy the same place as a lot of your text. You have plenty of images for the amount of text so don't worry about adding more. Your spelling and grammar isn't too bad but proofread it as you have made the most horrendous error in using your instead of you're. While I suspect this was a typo, and I will have corrected it by the time you read this, it does make me wonder if you proofread at all and whether it might not be worth going back when you edit and double checking for any similar small errors.
Images: 8 I see what you are doing with the images and they work well in some cases. However, ideally, you need to try and encourage the points that you make in a section with the images, while the jokes you have made (put in some captions!) are amusing they are sometimes not related to the jokes you make in a section, sort this out, the link is there but it is unclear and all it needs is a little clarification or editing to work properly. A small amount of work on this will ensure that your images work successfully. Otherwise, they are pretty good and I feel a bit harsh giving it a 7.... which is why I'm changing it to an 8.
Miscellaneous: 6.5 My overall grade of the article.
Final Score: 32.5 Your article is good and is by no means of damnably low quality. It is just confused in places and at times feels lazy and unsure of it's direction. This can be remedied by some smart editing and some rewrites of the more confused points. I must urge you to be careful when editing as you have made some very good jokes and it would be a shame to lose them. Ultimately your article is not bad and only slightly scary to read, but you should try and remember that you are talking about a complex topic and some confusion is going to occur when doing so. Good luck with any editing.
Reviewer: --ChiefjusticeDS 07:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools