Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Peaches Geldof

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 05:36, January 5, 2009 by Mnbvcxz (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Peaches Geldof

your-stairway-lies-on-the-whispering-wind@hotmail.com 15:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Claim this one, I'll get it done tonight or tomorrow morning. --Mnbvcxz 04:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Concept: 2.5 The subject is obscure, and much more importantly, the article is way too random. Try to be closer to the truth, randomness is not funny, and only confuses the reader. Additionally, the reader will not catch many of the inherently funny things about the subject because the reader can't tell fact from fiction. For example, a reader who doesn't know anything about the subject will think that her absurd name is complete bollocks.

This article will probably require a complete rewrite, you may have some funny bits in there, but they are downed in a sea of randomness.

Try to avoid namedropping and lists. Inserting random famous people into your article makes it feel random and memey. Lists are sometimes ok, but often they become magnets for random items.

Finally, your article is going to need to be a good bit longer, at least 4-5 kilobytes to get beyond "stub length".
Prose and Formatting: 3 Your article is a stub, so its rather difficult to see what errors will arise when you flesh it out. Right now, your main issues are the following:

RED LINKS your article is filled with red links. To most experienced readers, red links look formatting errors. I would suggest you get rid of all of them. The red-linked categories are especially "ugly." [Ugly means that an article is not formatted right, it can either mean specific errors (bad code), or a technically correct but visually unappealing layout)

Possibly, too many short paragraphs. I can't really tell what this article will look like once you flesh it out, but right now, it has a lot of short paragraphs. Try to combine them. If you find you have a series of short paragraphs that can't be combined, you might be covering the information to fast.
Images: 0 Ain't got one. Every article should have at least one image. Even if you think the article doesn't need it, the reader expects one, and images are a good way to make outlandish material a bit more believable. I would suggest an image of the subject.
Humour: 2.5 It almost seems like your using randomness is lieu of humor: that never works. Right now, I'd focus on making it funny and close to the truth. From the quality of the article, I can tell that your not familiar with this wiki's standards of humor and formatting. You might want to check out HTBFANJS (How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid) and the beginner's guide for some hints.
Improvability Score: 3 This may or may not be a good subject for an article. She is rather obscure, and I don't know much about her. Articles about obscure pop culture figures tend to be difficult to write about. When you write on an obscure subject, you'll need to make sure that you give enough information about the subject that your reader can follow it.

The low score is mainly due the lack of material, not inherent difficulty of the topic. If you think can you do better, go ahead and try.

As a final note, your article will probably be hit with a {{ICU}} tag in the near future. As long as you edit the article once in a 7 day period, the article will not be deleted. If you can't get the article to our standards of quality, but you still want to keep it, you should move it to userspace. Also, if it does get deleted, it can normally be re-created and userspaced by an administrator.
Final Score: 11 This is a very British subject, and I normally wouldn't have reviewed it, as I try to avoid reviewing subjects I an unfamiliar with. However, it had a lot of basic errors, and needs a quick review.
Reviewer: --Mnbvcxz 05:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects