Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Occam's Razor

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Occam's Razor

Okay - listy, but for a reason.                               Puppy's talk page00:40, June 5, 2009 Thursday, 23:22, Apr 1 2010 UTC

I'll do it if you can't find anyone else. Won't be able to give you much feedback though. It'll be lucky to get classed as in-depth. Feel free to hold off on it for a bit, if you want :) --Matfen 20:42, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
Go for it. I don't mind if it's not in-depth. I'll just complain to the nearest admin and insist you get perma-banned as a result.                               Puppy's talk page00:40, June 5, 2009 Tuesday, 21:42, Apr 6 2010 UTC
Kwlness! I never bin banned b4! I startz nw!--Matfen 22:05, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
Humour: 7.5 Why do I keep choosing to review these really unconventional articles? The scoring system never works with them. As I've said with a few of your past articles, ignore most of the scores I give, as they're quite abitrary and it's difficult to know how to score (with articles, not girls. I'm a playa in real life. Honest!). If I were to judge it like I would an article, this would get a 5, but as a Disambiguation page it could get around a 9. My reasoning for this is that most disambiguation pages have like 2 small laughs at the most. When I read this top to bottom, I had about 5 small laughs, and 2 decent laughs. Probably not that good for a standard article; monumental for a disambiguation page.

I'll go into detail about the suggestions I really found funny, and then some I found not so funny/confusing to my old physics teacher.

  • Lo Pan's Razor. I'm a big Lo Pan fan (rhyme lol), I even use his website and ask him for advice. This one was very random, but not randomly dumb, like David Beckham's Razor probably would have been. (Actually, that would be Gillette, wouldn't it? Nevermind.)
  • Occam Programming Language AKA Basic.
  • Hickam's Dictum.
  • Peter Simple (Racehorse) That seemed to be the height for pushing irrelevent material.

Things I didn't get like so much:

  • Occam's Razr. I'm not up on mobile phones seeing as I'm a hick from the North of England, so I didn't get this right away. Even after looking up the Razr and finding it was a Motorola mobile phone, the fact that it's Occam's doesn't quite make much sense. I think it would do well as Motorola RAZR, as it would be clearer you were referring to the cellphone, and increase the idea of pointless suggestions. Plus, it's highly improbable that a 14th century priest (yeah, I looked it up. Oh, wait. It's on the picture as well. How embarrassing for me.) owned a Motorola Razr. Not even Chuck Norris owned a Motorola Razr back then.
  • Semple. It doesn't really add much, and doesn't have a meaning on it's own, besides a load of people's last names.

Everything I didn't mention was either because it got a small laugh, or no laugh but it still fitted the dis. page.

Concept: 8 Unless a reader has dabbled in philosophy, or seen the episodes of Scrubs and House when it gets mentioned, there's a good chance the joke of this page might go over their head. It's a good joke, highbrow, and a good idea, but it limits itself in that the need to have lots and lots of pointless information and suggestions can dilute what humour there is.
Prose and formatting: 9 This follows disambiguation page conventions accurately. No spelling or Grammar mistakes that I could see. The ultra serious tone helps the concept, but that's also part of why the humour can be limited, as the only jokes you can get out of a serious tone is dead-pan. There's not much room for any witty asides or humourous deviations without seeming inconsistent. Also, the very last link; Simply, uses a link to De La Salle, which has been huffed probably since you made the page a while ago. The only joke I can get out of this is that Keanu Reeves briefly went to a high school named that, and I only know that because I wrote the mammoth article on him. I'm curious what the joke was that you intended it to be, cause I doubt it to be Keanu Reeves.
Images: 8.5 Images are good, and mostly relevent (well, relevent to the irrelevent article links). A small issue about the formatting, but I don't if it's a special case or not. When I had my old laptop, I was under the false impression that the way formatting comes out on everyone's different computer screens was the same. Then, I was luckily enough for it to die, and I managed to get a cheap Dell with a widescreen, and I noticed a lot of my old articles were quite out of proportion. So I'm unsure now whether to query about the contents table, which sticks out a bit from the left, and could be solved by reducing a few pixels on the images and moving them down a few lines. If it doesn't stick out on yours though, ignore this.
Miscellaneous: 8.3 Averaged using Pee.
Final Score: 41.3 I seriously don't know how I managed to make an in depth review of this. I must be high or something. Anyway, ignoring my scoring, this is a very unique and clever page. Possibly too clever for its own good. However, there is little that needs or can be done, and even so, you could still ignore this review and feature it anyway. Just like Alone in the Dark. ;) I need to review something really bad soon, so people will still think I have any critical ability whatsoever.
Reviewer: --Matfen 23:26, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools