From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Dogshead 14:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Nuneaton? I think I live near there? Whatever the case, I will review it anyway. --Nachlader 14:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
|Humour:||6||Holy balls, this is random. You know, if random humour of this scale was widely successful as a brand of comedy, every article on Uncyclopedia would be like this. And each one of them; on VFH. However, it has to be said: this is the pseudo-GOOD random, where if you look hard enough, you might just laugh, if not hysterically.
However, while I'd give most articles that go along the aforementioned lines a 3 or 4 in humour, I'm giving this article a 6 as it did push hard (very hard) for a standard of humour. This article is much, much better than most anti-culture articles I find myself reviewing every now and then.
I can honestly not suggest making it funnier still, but winding the tone down, making it a bit more serious and less random. If you take any topic and resort to anti-Hitler or Thatcher jokes, you know you are running out of ideas. Luckily for you though, there is enough humourous content within the article as it is. The Euston to Liverpool line that dumps unpaying Liverpudlians in Nuneaton as it passes through the town is a fantastic joke! But due to overdoing it, the jokes like that (and the town's policy on how to deal with rubbish = gold) will be stripped of all their humour if you go off your head and say that Hitler stood for local parliament in Nuneaton "winning 500% of the vote". Now for me, that just kills off my smile. New Zealand says it is ruled by Nazis. Nearly EVERY anti-culture article mentions Hitler as it's leader. Seriously, why? You don't need to go down to that level!
There are many unfunny jokes similar to that, such as "As with every other British town, Nuneaton is full of lazy old bastards on motorised scooters, blocking up all the pavements, and acting as though they are better than Jesus." This isn't something I'm aware of in the rest of Britain, therefore it's more random rubbish than a stereotypical joke.
|Concept:||4||Can't say everyone knows of Nuneaton, which is a bit of a downer really, as most people have heard of New Zealand, but their article is horrible and makes me want to gouge out my eyes, unlike your article on Nuneaton, which is much better in comparision. However, there is still yet much in the concept of your article that could claim Nuneaton to be the capital city of New Zealand.
This article would be so much better if you could make it... a little less random. You may think that this would be a bad idea, but you have to go one step backward to go two steps forward. Some of the jokes you have in this article are just great, but then the entire ship is dragged down by the other nonsensical jokes and poor coordination of text.
Concentrate on Nuneaton. You don't need to mention Hitler, Jesus, Thatcher or whatever. In fact, it may be worth getting rid of the "Notable People" section altogether, after all the article has enough lists. Also, the "Timeline" section is another example; you ought to put the years in order, maybe get rid of the future years, they detract on everything, especially considering the joke that Nuneaton was originally on the Axis side during the course of WWII is excellent, if not somewhat old. Get rid of all the stuff and you're already on the way to trimming away at the beautiful hair of the article that has chewing gum stuck in it.
|Prose and formatting:||5||Definately one of the areas that needs a vivid clean up. It is disappointing that despite the bulk of content that you've conceived, it is badly organised, there are one too many lists, there are one-liners running amok tearing up the seats, there are red links burning a hole in my eyes and there are few pitfalls of typos, including:
I'd suggest you take out all of the red links, as they depress the rest of the text with it's dead-endness. While the humour is good, some of the prose and jokes are presented as one-liners. Sentences are very communal creatures. If you take a sentence out of a paragraph and leave it on it's own, you can actually watch it go mad with loneliness. Take the one-liners, knit them together, produce some attractive paragraphs and show your spellbinding content.
The structure and organisation of the text could do with a shuffle. The first section is a list. Then the second section is another list. Articles that resort to lazy lists, which are unproffesional compared to a paragraph, are generally frowned upon. However, if an article has an appropiate amount of lists that aren't too long and repetitive, they can be forgiven. Just don't start the article off with two of the damn things. I'd suggest getting rid of the "Notable People" list/section, moving the "Trivia" article as the second last section, putting the "Culture" section as the first part following the table of contents, and moving the two lists, "Timeline" and "Suburbs" so that they are sandwiched inbetween sections that consist of proper paragraphs. This way, the lists will be less scathing upon the eyes of readers and reveiwers alike.
|Images:||7||Plenty of images. In fact I usually mark down the number of images in my reviews, but this time around I merely lost count. Even so, I can safely say that there is a lot of images. Some of the images are good and represent the 'backward' nature that you hold Nuneaton in, however the image of Bez has nothing to do with anything in the article. I would also suggest you remove the image of "Mount Judd". It doesn't look like it's in Nuneaton, whilst the other images do.
Remove two images, doesn't sound like you'll be improving it, but bear in mind the article is long enough anyway (longer than most Uncyclopedia articles about entire nations even) and there are plenty of images in the article that hold their own.
|Final Score:||27.5||Don't get high on this, but this article could probably make it to VFH ONCE you give this a haircut, a manicure, a massage and one great big dirty rewrite and executions for several criminal sections. However, even if you improve the article, there is still the problem that only British people may find this article funny.
Still, it can't hurt to try. I hope my opinion helped and good luck with the article and future projects.
|Reviewer:||--Nachlader 22:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)|