From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Fezzul 14:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll probably get on this later, though someone else can do it if they want too. Saberwolf116 21:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Strike that. Fezzul, you don't really review country articles, because nearly all of them are irredemable crap. Saberwolf116 00:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's not the point, Saber - he asked for a review, and he has done some work on it - perhaps he's trying to stop this one being irredeemable crap. Therefore:
|A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article|
is being reviewed by:
UU - natter
(While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead).
(Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole).
|Humour:||3||Oh boy, not the most promising of starts there, so please bear with me and don't get discouraged - you can improve this quite a bit, and I'll try to detail how.
First, the problems: this seems in many ways a typical country article, with all the things that entails. It's got a couple of pointless lists, a lot of random content, a lot of inconsistencies (typical for an article edited by so many different people), the occasional decent idea, lots of bad ideas that quickly go nowhere, and very little that makes sense for very long.
However, that said, it doesn't have too much hatecruft in it - sections devoted to either just saying what a crap place it is or how crap its despised neighbour is. That's a plus point, believe me.
On the other hand, there is a lot of name-dropping randomness, and many other problems, including the whole "future" thing - this isn't relevant, it is inconsistent, features a lot of random, and is utterly losable.
The biggest problem is that while some bits are more coherently written than the rest, there doesn't, at any point, seem to be any clear idea, and the article meanders from one nonsensical topic to another. What's needed here is a little consistency of concept - so see the next section.
The reason this gets a 3 and not a 2 is "Sultan Pep'ur", because I am a complete sucker for puns.
|Concept:||3||Right, as I've said, there isn't really any concept to speak of, and certainly no consistency. This is the key - to make a good article, you need a central idea - you can expand on the idea, or cover various topics within the article as long as they have some kind of unifying idea - otherwise it seems disjointed and readers quickly become confused and lose interest. So what I recommend is sitting down and working out what kind of central idea you're going to use to make this article work.
You could just look to take the Wikipedia article on Oman as your base, and gently satirise the country through subversion of the existing facts. That's quite a tough approach to take, as it's tricky to get it right.
Another idea may be to look through some featured articles to see if any give you a good idea. Notice how there aren't that many featured country articles? That's because most of them have the same problem. Notably, the few that have been featured, such as Great Britain, have a central idea that they hang all of their jokes from - in that case, it's an article written about the country from the perspective of a stereotypical American who knows very little about the place. A lot of the jokes there are based on cartoonish misconceptions.
Or you could perhaps focus on the fact that Oman gets a lot less press than pretty much anywhere else in the Middle East, and how as a result it just wants to be noticed? Plans could be afoot to boost the nation's standing internationally - perhaps the government thinks they need a few more terrorist attacks like other countries in the region that seem to get more coverage, and is appealing for some volunteers to get government-sponsored training in how to be a radical terrorist? Something absurd like that could be quite fun, perhaps.
Whatever central idea you choose, it is the most important thing about the article - however silly something is, it does have to have some kind of consistency, otherwise it becomes too random. So pick your idea, and then makes sure all the content is relevant to it.
|Prose and formatting:||5||Inconsistent, listy, plenty of typos - this needs work. However, as I'm recommending a complete overhaul, I'm not going to flag up individual examples here - the trick is going to be making the whole article sound like it's been written by one person.|
|Images:||4||There are a couple in the template, and one further down. There are large areas with no images. My rule of thumb is that if I, with my large screen resolution, can view a whole section of a page without a single image on it, there aren't enough. So you need more pics.
Of the ones you have, the bit of text over the flag seems a bit pointless and not particularly well done, the coat of arms is kinda random and doiesn't seem related to anything in the text, the map is relevant at least, and the other pic is sort of relevant but the caption is baffling and adds nothing.
|Final Score:||18.8||So, this is not a great score, but this is not irredeemable crap. Don't let this score put you off - not all of this article is your own, and it suffers from a lack of direction. It is possible to improve this score quite quickly. So, here's a summary of how to proceed:
Spend a bit of time working on these suggestions, and I feel sure you can make a significant improvement to this article.
Finally, please remember: this is only my opinion, others are available. And good luck!
|Reviewer:||--UU - natter 10:23, Jun 7|