Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Otto Weininger

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Otto Weininger 22:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Humour: 2 Short, irredeemable jokes that just boil down to gay jokes with smart sounding names on the ends. It's not really that funny. I'm pretty disappointed, because this is a pretty promising concept. I really thought this was going to go somewhere nice. But it ended up being rather immature and pedantic in its humor. There were some good moments, such as "In pre-school, Otto confronts the opposite sex, whose members call him ugly and smelly." The line right after it completely ruins it for me, but that one joke really seemed to fit that section, and something like a troubled childhood filled with bad experiences with girls would make for a great angle. Perhaps later in the article, you could describe his troubled teen years, and how his awkward only worsened his relationships with women, thus fostering his negative attitude towards them. But you really need to rewrite most of this article. In fact, go ahead and just rewrite the entire thing. There's not much to keep here.
Concept: 6 This is not a bad idea for an article. I think I went over a lot of concept suggestions in the Humor section, so I won't make too many more here. I just want to comment on how your article really doesn't deviate too much from reality, (as far as the main storyline goes) which is a good thing. When writing about historical figures, it's a great idea to stay historically accurate. You've gotten your basic idea grounded in historical fact, which is a great thing. Now, that's where the compliments stop. You've got to stick with your concept once you've gotten a good one. This article falls apart very fast. Having a direction is one thing, following through with it is another thing. But the score in this section isn't for how well you executed your concept, it's for the concept itself. So you get my six.
Prose and formatting: 4 Alright, amidst the spelling and grammatical errors, I have one major beef with this article. And that is that most of the article is written in the present tense. This makes no sense for a biographical article about a man who lived in the early 1900s. What makes it worse is that not all of it is written in present tense. It drifts in and out, but is, for the majority of the article, in present tense. A biographical article should almost always be written in the past tense, (this is Uncyclopedia so obviously there are bound to be some exceptions) and EVERY article should be written in a consistent tense unless otherwise called for. It's extremely important that you clean up the writing in this article so that the tense is consistent, otherwise it looks very amateurish.
Images: 0 I searched high and low. No images. You're gonna have to do better than that, kiddo. Images are absolutely necessary for an article to survive on the mainspace. Either go request some images or make some yourself. Stealing from Wikipedia is also okay. Just make sure that any edited pictures that you put up are good ones that add to the story and don't distract from it. Also, avoid text-based images that require understanding of the concept. Images should be appealing to the casual reader just flipping through pages. This is what will catch the reader's eye and make them want to read your article. Images are extremely important, please add some.
Miscellaneous: 3 Averaged using {{Pee}}.
Final Score: 15 This article could best be looked at as a shell. It looks great from the outside. It's solid. It's shiny. But once you break into it, instead of finding a soft creamy center, you find crap. This is a nice frame for a potentially great article. But there's no substance, at least no good substance, anyways. Try reading HTBFANJS, it's a great humor guide which will help you with the major problems you seemed to run into when writing this. I hope you decide to go through with rewriting this and put some real time into this. It's got a lot of potential, but needs a lot of work on your part. I hope this review gave you some useful insight.
Reviewer: ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUNWotMRotMAotMVFHSKPEEINGHPBFF @ 01:42 Mar 12

It's less work for me to throw everything away and rewrite the whole thing than to make improvements. I think the Wagner/Wilde/Strindberg line would make sense to anyone who knows Strindberg, but not everyone do, so I guess I should throw that away along with the rest. Afterall, there is a Strindberg article for making fun of Strindberg. Also, I fear the problem with the quotes section is that it only makes sense to people who are more familiar with Hitler's quotes. --Unregistered Rascal

Yerr, the references weren't even really what I was upset about. I really think you need to have a look at HTBFANJS before you have another go at this. Also, registered or not, you need to be signing your posts properly with 4 tildes. Thanks! ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUNWotMRotMAotMVFHSKPEEINGHPBFF @ 16:51 Mar 12 16:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
When the time comes, I'm going to rewrite the entire article from scratch and take as little as possible from the existing one. I know you weren't upset about the Strindberg and Mein Kampf references. I was only contemplating on their value. While I am fond of them, I thought they might really belong to another article, and not here. How could the Strindberg reference even begin to make sense to people who aren't familiar with Strindberg or his eccentric behavior? 18:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Unregistered Rascal
Personal tools