Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Nursery

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Nursery

Ok, so I've used the same character/voice here as I did in Sandcastle but I've made sure that the articles are indipendant of each other. Wanting some feedback on if they're are any ideas in there that need expanding (got this awful feeling it's too shot) or if theres other things from Nursery you'd like mentioned. Also I'm waiting on an image from Sonje, so if you could just imagine it's there that's be great. In depth review, experianced reviewer please. ~Orian57~ Icons-flag-gb ~Talk~ Gay sign 19:39 18 May 2009

No need to imagine any more, Sonje's pic is now there. ~Orian57~ Icons-flag-gb ~Talk~ Gay sign 14:32 22 May 2009

Humour: 7 Well, Orian, I think you've got a good idea, but I don't think this was as good as your previous feature. There are a couple of things that kind of bugged me when I was reading this: first, your images look a little out of place, which i'll get into in the P&F section. Second, this kid, unlike your previous article, doesn't really sound like a 4-year old. There are a couple of words in here (such as "mispronounce") that I would never expect a 4-year old to know. It's still a pretty funny article, the the higher-than-average language for this article takes away a bit of the bang. I think you should read over this another time and dumb it down a bit- the more the kid sounds like a 4-year old, the more authentic the article seems.
Concept: 9 I see you've returned with the protaginist from your previous article. Writing an article in the style of a 4-year old is a very interesting thing to do, provided you don't run out of things to write about. It takes some skill to write an article in this style without sounding flat-out stupid, so good job here- the only thing I can suggest to improve is the same thing I said in the humor section- dumb the writing down a bit.
Prose and formatting: 6 Since the prose is intentionally bad, I can't really berate you for that- but still, it doesn't look too good when you're reading it, so you get a little off for that one. The main problem is that your images sort of look like they're in the wrong place. When I skim through the article quickly, one thing that strikes me is that your images look too large when compared to your sections. I'd recommend two things here to make your article look nicer- first, reduce the size of the images so that they stay don't overlap into more than one sections. Second, i'd recommend popping an image or two into some of your longer looking sections- namely, the "Sandpit and Water Table" one. Also, try adding an image to the intro- just a generic picture of a nursery should suffice.
Images: 8 No laugh out loud moments, with the exception of the first one (Sonje does it again), but I suppose they go into the article OK. Still, I think your article would look nicer if your first two images were smaller, and you added images to the two sections I specified above. A few good ones would be a picture of a nursery room (http://www.johnlewis.com/jl_assets/product/05C_09_HA229_02.jpg) and of a sandbox in the latter section- IMO, smaller, abundant images look better than large, spread out ones.
Miscellaneous: 7.5 My overall grade of the article.
Final Score: 37.5 I don't think this should be on VFH at the moment because, while it's good, I think there are a few screws you need to tighten. To recap: reduce the size of your images so your article looks nicer, add a few more images to your longer sections, dumb down your writing to make it sound more like a 4-year old, and as an added bonus, expand your last section and remove a few of the red links.

Bottom Line: Good article, not quite VFH yet, fine tune it a bit. Good luck! =)

Reviewer: Saberwolf116 23:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools