Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Pittsburgh Penguins

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Pittsburgh Penguins

KrisSpoopballs 03:25, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Humour: 3 I see that you have some promise, young KrisSpoopballs, so I am hesitant to knock down your efforts so harshly. Then, I decided to anyway. I did not laugh or smile while reading this article; the generous score of 3 reflects the fact that Oprah didn't eat the penguins and Oscar Wilde didn't rape them. It also reflects the massive potential I see in this article, but more on that later.

The problem here is that the premise does not lend itself to humour: an ice hockey team made up of penguins, founded by Charles Darwin, that moved to Pittsburgh, where all the penguins died. There just isn't anything to work with there. Even if the premise was better, I think you have a long way to go for your articles to be funny. The list of players at the end of the article is particularly dire; lists should only be used where lists are needed, and this one is not needed. Nobody wants to know that Mario and Andre the Giant were members of the Penguins.

I highly recommend browsing through featured content at random for a taste of what makes good humour. Also, the first post on your talk page contains some excellent links to get you started.

Concept: 5 About half of your concept is grand, and about half is terrible. Mostly, it just isn't coherent. The introduction says that penguins are not the champions, and that penguins do not play hockey, and that Pittsburgh invaded Canada for some reason. The rest of the article goes on to describe what I must assume is a different team.

Having the team made up entirely of penguins has big potential for funnies; the involvement of Charles Darwin not so much. I would happily read a well-written article about an animal team playing a pack of other animal teams (with hilarious results!). As it is, your article is half-way between two things: an article about men playing hockey with jokes about penguins, and an article about penguins playing hockey (the latter would be preferred). Often the best parody is that closest to the truth: perhaps your article could closely reflect the real events connected to the franchise, rather than going all tangential about Darwin and stuff.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, choose a concept and stick with it.

Prose and formatting: 5 Not too bad, really. The text is pleasantly readable and there are no obvious formatting errors like red links and broken effects. Once you have revised your article, a visit to the Proofreading Service might be in order to weed out the bad grammar and few difficult sentences.
Images: 3 Penguins logo is mandatory; Darwin picture is stupid and only tenuously related to the article. If you write a good enough article, you might be able to request a nice photoshopped image of a penguin playing hockey.
Miscellaneous: 4 Averaged.
Final Score: 20 I have given waaay harsher reviews than this to new writers. You could do well here, just need to rein in the random and have a firm idea of what you want your concept to be. Also: have you considered Uncyclopedia:Adopt-A-Noob? It's a pretty good way to get going around here. Good luck.
Reviewer: IronLung 07:09, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects