Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Problem of evil
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Long-time reader. One day, I was somewhat bored, so I decided to start writing. It's a pretty quick one, but hey, I'm (kind of?) new at this.
Thomas Anderson 00:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'll try to get this tomorrow morning (or this afternoon your time if your in Europe) --Mnb'z 07:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
|Concept:||6||The idea is good, but your take on it needs some work.
Basically, philosophy articles need to be rather in depth, and quite deadpan to work. See Pointless Paradox for an example of a good philosophy article. You'd need to go through the objections to the theory, and the objections to the objections. Right now, its too both too short and too rambling. I would suggest reading wikipedia's article on the subject.
Also, I really wouldn't go through the argument more than once, it gets repetitive and almost "name-droppy". In other words, it starts to look like your ran out of ideas and are bringing random funny things into the article to fill it out. Also, I'd suggest getting rid of the car example and copy-pasting wikipedia's version, inserting a controlled amount of humor.
|Prose and Formatting:||6||Formatting is ok, however, it is quite stubby. I tend to hesitant to give high formatting scores for stubby articles, as formatting errors can arise when you expand it. Also, you have alot of short paragraphs. This may in part be due to the format of the article. However, they are still a possible concern: a series of short paragraphs that can't combined is generally sign that your covering the material too fast.|
|Images:||6.5||The images are ok, but not really related too much to the subject matter. However, that isn't really a problem for this article, since I don't think you can get any images that go with the "core ideas" of the article. If you rewrite this, you might have to change the images. If all else fails, try coping wikipeida's images from their article.|
|Humour:||4.5||Overall, you seem to using too many forced jokes, which at times, approaches random humor. And it times, you seem to "wonder" or ramble a bit. Its more sentence or two bunny trails and filibustering on for paragraphs. That does not work in philosophy articles.
You need to keep a deadpan/"straight man" delivery though-out. That will be more funny and keep the reader's attention better than "joke fishing". You article can and should have humor, but don't break the delivery style to insert a joke. Ruining the delivery does more damage to the humor than any joke could possibly add.
Also, try to avoid bringing in celebrities and internet memes. These are often bad everywhere, but are especially bad in philosophy articles. Additionally, avoid the "this was invented by Some Randomcelebrity/Someguy Ijustmadeup in some random year" type statements. Those type of jokes are never funny and only confuse the reader, making your article harder to follow.
|Improvability Score:||6||I think this can be improved, but it will require alot of rewriting. I would only keep the header and "Problem of the Wrecked Car" sections, and even there, I would suggest some serious rewriting. (You might have some good ideas you can use in the last part, but overall, its mostly repitition and name dropping.)|
|Final Score:||29||good luck|
|Reviewer:||--Mnb'z 18:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)|