Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Present

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 20:06, February 16, 2013 by Mnbvcxz (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit Present

Reality2 (talk) 01:48, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Concept: 5 The article is based on word play, and it isn't randumb. It is also internally consistent. However, while the article looks clever, it is almost unreadable.

The article, although it does stay on the same subject, seems to ramble on. In places, it borders on incoherence, albeit, a weird consistent incoherence. I can't tell if there is actual incoherence, or word play I'm just not getting, and trying to differentiate the two is giving me a headache.

If you shortened this article some, it might improve it. You can only use the same joke for so long before it gets repetitive. While you generally stay on the topic, you also make forays into memes and inside jokes. Never shoe-horn references to the Fly Spaghetti Monster, Uncyclopedia, and the like. You can mention them, but only when it would be relevant to do so. If you are unsure, you probably shouldn't.

Prose and Formatting: 7 It looks like this article has already been proofread. I can still see a few typos though. Try reading the article out-loud to pic up any mistakes.

At the end of the article, there is what I call an in-text image. I define an "in-text image" as one which is flanked by white space rather than text. You should generally avoid these, it makes your article look like an image vomit rather than an article with good text.

In the past, poorly written articles often have a surplus of images. Since text was crap, new funny images didn't hurt the tone/theme/whatever, and pics accumulated. In addition, some of our earlier articles (2005/06) were cobbled together by dozens of editors, each adding a little bit of content without any real concern to the overall theme of the article. These articles had funny parts on occasion, but also tended to be filled with quotes, lists, not particularly relevant images, memes, and inside jokes.

You might want to add a see-also section at the end of your article, so it doesn't feel like it ends abruptly.

Images: 6 The images are relevant for the most part. However, the Chinese man in a potato outfit has nothing whatever to do with the article. Likewise, the "China" category seems unrelated to the article. I would suggest removing that image, and moving the final image up.
Humour: 4 The humor is consistent throughout the article. As a rule, you stay on topic, but make the occasion foray into mild randomness/memes. I would try to tone down the randomness/forced memes.

Also, some of your section headings could be improved. Specifically, "A present" isn't a good section heading, because it is almost the same as the title itself.

Improvability Score: 4 I took the liberty of doing a quick cleanup.Any formatting changes I made should be taken as suggestions only.

I don't know of a good way to fix this article. You could try trimming it, but I don't know if that would work. It is probably OK as it stands. It probably will never win VFH, but it probably won't be removed by the various quality control mechanisms either. There are some minor fixes you can do, but unless you have an idea for improving it, it might be best to work on other pages.

Final Score: 26 Please contact me on my talk page about his article, as my watchlist is ridiculously long, and I may miss any comments here. Also, you may wish to withdraw your pee request at the fork.
Reviewer: --Mn-z 20:06, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects