Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Orientation: Your First Day at Uncyclopedia (preliminary review)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
I've still got a lot of work to do on this, but I'd like some tips on how I should proceed. It obviously still needs pictures and some more links so please don't hold that against me. I'd like this to eventually be a piece that, while obviously complete bullshit, will actually be helpful for noobs (if they can read between the lines). Sort of an example of what not to do. Experienced peer please. --OptyC Sucks! CUN 00:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- What you've got so far is pretty good! I won't do a full review as you've asked for experience (of which i have little) and I doubt I could do it justice in my current state of mind. The concept could work but noobs may not realise you're being ironic and take your advice on face value. Although while you're waiting, for someone
prettier and more expensivewith more 'experience' you could pee my article, its been in the queue for five days and is feeling abandoned! --orian57 03:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
|Humour:||7||Throughout this article, you did a good job of maintaining a light amount of humour, but you lost your steam as the article went on. You made good points for the n00bs to think about, and your constant references to HTBFANJS indicate that you did read it. I will put my criticisms about this article a bit bluntly, lists and large numbers rarely, if ever, help an article out. If you can find a way to work the lists into normal text format, it would definitely help you out.|
|Concept:||9||Ahh, it is refreshing to see a unique concept pop up on this line. I enjoyed the fact that you are well on the way to making another Unofficial Policy on Uncyclopedia, possibly one that will be used on greeting templates. With good fortune, you left yourself room to breath and wiggle around a bit, which is important. I can’t say much more about this section, unfortunately.|
|Prose and formatting:||8||Reading over this article, you had quite a couple of things coming in for your favor. The complete absence of red links was helpful, and the only negative comment I have in this section is the lack of categories. As you probably know by now, without categories, people will have a difficult time finding your article. I think that, as I mentioned before, Unofficial Policy, Words, and a few others would work with this article.|
|Images:||0||I simply cannot give a score on images to an article that does not have any images. My recommendation to add in would be some guy at a computer dozing off, with a caption explaining the side effects. For an article of this length, I would recommend finding 4 average sized pictures, lightly scattered across the board, just make sure they are relevant to whatever is going on next to them, and that they are humourous, even if in a serious way.|
|Miscellaneous:||6||Avg’d as per Pee Review guidelines|
|Final Score:||30||This article definitally has the ability to become a mainstream article, but as I mentioned, it does need work. Here is my homework for you.
Overall, this score does not reflect how good the article actually is because the 0 in images dragged it down. The images are THE MOST IMPORTANT part of your homework. Good luck!
|Reviewer:||Warm Regards, Javascap 14:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)|
|Humour:||7||OK, I see what you're trying to do here, and it works to a decent degree. The self referential thing is fine enough if done well, and leavened with the right amount of fun. A few comments though:
|Concept:||8||Yeh, pretty good. Although it unavoidably reminds me of this - which you need to link to or reference in some way, I reckon - it should work quite well as a counterpoint to it. Spend a little time with that article, and see if it gives you any other ideas, by the way.|
|Prose and formatting:||7||Fine in the main, although a few typos ("fist ranking", "dicouraged", "follwing" etc) need picking up. Personally, I recommend editing using Firefox with a spellchecker add-on. Oh, and for reference, "principal" = "first", "principle" = something that something else is founded on. I = picky!
In general, prose is fine, if possibly with a slightly high wordiness to chuckle ratio (something I often suffer from).
|Images:||4||well, you have a couple now, which is a start. And the second in particular is well captioned and used in such a way that it's nicely relevant and works. The first needs a caption. You also need a few more (4 or 5 of that size for an article of this size, by my estimation). But those two show you know the kind of thing you're looking for, so the 4 here is proportionate - a few more and it will rise accordingly.|
|Miscellaneous:||6.5||Averaged - it's how you do things around here, isn't it?|
|Final Score:||32.5||Yeah, this article has plenty of potential, and with a bit more work, should be a really enjoyable addition to the canon of self-referential Uncyc articles. I wouldn't worry about adding any categories, but I would back off from the lists - at the moment, you're undermining your article with the very thing you're seeking to ridicule. Some more links might help as well - offering up pages such as the Chuck Norris facts and others that are tolerated because they could be so much worse as examples of our best work might be fun. might help you here. Overall though, an article with considerable promise, so I hope you keep working on it.
Hope these comments are helpful, and as always: this is only my opinion, others are available. And good luck!
|Reviewer:||--SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 09:26, Apr 13|