From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
NeuroticNinjaPirate666 14:15, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
This shall be reviewed by a person called me by this time tomorrow. Probably sooner, but you never know.-- 20100719 - 01:06 (UTC)
|Humour:||5||Something to note - that flowers in general usually contain both male and female organs, and the often stamens outnumber the female gynoecia... this could make for somewhat disturbing references of just how much alteration goes on, perhaps, but also it might work better not to say that the males want to be females but that the flowers don't want to be corrupted by the male parts and only want the more sweet female parts so as to attract even more insects that would pollinate them. This would be ironic, though, as these kinds of flowers pollinate each other through insects by an insect depositing pollen(sperm) on the next flower's stigma and at the same time pick up more pollen. A flower of a species that normally does this that refuses to have its own pollen could... I dunno. I guess this is just a half-formed idea. Perhaps be like folks on welfare, only taking from society and not giving back?
Anyhow, that and other technical whatnots aside, the thing is too short. Expand. Explain your ideas, back them up, provide examples, feel free to go all enclopedic with a pile of blatant lies outlining whatever. You have starts of this in your sections in general, so build. Look at the wikipedia articles on both concepts and use those for further expansion.
There's not enough stuff to be overly funny.
|Concept:||7||Mmm, good concept, plenty more you could do with it, but, well... I do like the concept. Puns (or whatever the right word for this sort of thing is) of this nature are a large part of why I so like Uncyclopedia - they dash expectations. Non-sequitors. And this here not only keeps the flower, but then tacks on the colloquial term to make for a potentially glorious pile of misinformation.
Also, instead of having two pages with the same text, you should probably put back the redirect from one to the other... though I'd say put the the pansie to the pansy this time in keeping with the flower joke. Or would the other way around make it funnier?
|Prose and formatting:||4||Eh, perhaps its the lack of content, but the flow of this needs help. If you break up paragraphs into their separate ideas and then expand upon each one individually, it could do the article more favours than one.
Word choice is another concern you should probably address, which is also not helping the overall flow. Each section begins with 'Pansies' or 'Most Pansies' or whatnot; this is generally not a good sign. Vary your structure more. Intersperse longer and shorter sentences, use a greater variety of transitions, build upon previous ones. Doing so will not only help the readability but subsequently the humour, the tone, even the content itself, perhaps, as many sentences can logically flow into more in-depth analyses.
Also, check your commas. For the most part they're surprisingly decent for something in this day and age, but I noticed a couple that just seemed wrong. I'm no english teacher, but...
|Images:||4||One image, and frankly, it creeps me out. On the other hand, it fits... eh, it's good. Now add more. Back up the initial. Make the article pretty, dammit.
Also, you have a comma splice in the caption - something about an obscure grammatical rule that says when listing things, don't put a comma on the last part? Or some such.
|Miscellaneous:||5||Behold! A number! In all seriousness, though, I think the article has hope, so I attempted to pull a number with hope out of my arse, which by sheer coincidence happens to be the average of the other numbers.|
|Final Score:||25||Another number! Eeek! Oh, wait, that's supposed to be there... er... anyhow, read the comments; they're the important part, and I think they should help. At least, I hope so? Cheers.|
|Reviewer:||Love and kisses-- 20100719 - 16:43 (UTC)|