Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Printer Ink
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
A gentle little article spawned during a recent attempt to get ink for my printer. All pee gratefully received.
- - I'll try to review it tonight (or early next morning from your perspective) --Mnbvcxz 17:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
|Concept:||5.5|| The idea is good, but your take on the subject could use some work. Your main problem is that you're too "blunt" and are using implausible hyperbole. Basically, you're doing what I often call "beating the subject with a sledgehammer." Sometimes that is funny, but often, it comes across as being overly dramatic, and makes your article feel like a hissy fit to the reader. Or, that you're bitching at the subject for the sake of bitching. Try to tone it down some. You do start out (relatively) mild and go up from there, but you start off way too strong, and go into absurd hyperbole to the point where it reaches the level of almost "random".|
Also, your article does suffer from some annoying factual errors. For example, you say that black is the most expensive ink (when its actually the cheapest). Also, gasoline is actually a rather cheap substance. An over-load of these errors can hurt the flow, or followability of your article.
|Prose and Formatting:||7.5||No major formatting errors. You do have the following minor issues (this is mostly nit picking):|
the short paragraphs after the main sections headers look a little ugly. You might not be able to fix that without messing with your text, and you shouldn't ramble for the fact of aesthetic paragraph length. But, you might be able to squeeze another funny sentence or two in those areas.
You might want to put the footnotes after the links, and reduce the size of the foot note text. I believe wikipedia puts the footnotes after internal links.
Lastly, you don't link the section header "black" but you do the others. On a related note, itmight be funny if you have the text about yellow as yellow, cyan as cyan, et cetera. But, those colors are a bit bright for a white background.
|Images:||6.5||The images are appropriate, but some of the captions are a bit outlandish or unrelated to the text of the article. The first image (blots of ink) is funny, and a good header image. The second - fifth ones could probably be improved. They are, at the same time, too mild and too unrelated at the same time. As a rule, images can get away with being more absurd or outlandish than the text. The sixth one is probably keepable, its funny, as is referring to water as dihydrogen monoxide. The 7th one is also probably keepable, but it might come off a bit excessive depending on how your article looks.|
|Humour:||4.5||I can see some potential in the article, but its mostly overwhelmed by too much hyperbole. (Some reviewers might even call it random at times. I generally try to avoid the word random, since it has several definitions.) At times, you seem to be relying on highly improbable hyperbole (or "randomness") to be funny. By this, I mean areas that are even more hyperbolic than the surrounding text. I bolded an example below:
Those sections really aren't funny, and they are so hyperbolic, that they threaten the "flow" or followability of your article. In other words, the reader can't mentally follow what you write. You're problem is you're base text is too outlandish making it hard to make jokes without ascending into "random" territory. If the base text is more restrained, you can make more jokes without overwhelming the reader.
|Improvability Score:||7||I think this article can be fixed with some toning down. That will require a lot of re-writing the current material. Right now, your article is ok, but I think it can be made a lot better.|
|Final Score:||31||Tone down.|
|Reviewer:||--Mnbvcxz 06:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)|
Many thanks for your review - it's useful to have another perspective - particularly one of this nature. I get what you're saying about hyperbole, but that's partly what I'm trying to achieve here, without being totally random. The "joke" from my perspective, is the fact that printer ink is very expensive to buy, and this article should come across as a manufacturer's justification for this. This perspective works best in the "Solvent" section, and I'll rewrite to strengthen this concept. It's also interesting to hear gasoline described as "cheap" - try getting a Brit to agree with you on this... Many thanks again --Asahatter (annoy) 09:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Perspective change" might be your course of action. I can't see that this is written from the manufacturer's perspective right now. I mean, looking back on it, I see some evidence of it, but it doesn't come across to the first time reader. Try to make that the fact a bit more obvious. Its better to be too obvious with your fake biases than to not have the reader notice them at all. --Mnbvcxz 17:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)