Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Raka

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Raka

I'm sorry , bt hey it's completed now . So will u plz .. ahem..plz .. review it :)

I was about to review this article when I noticed that you've still got the "under construction" template on it. You should probably only submit articles for reviewing once you're finished with them. Or maybe that's just my thinking. I could be wrong. There's no I in RAPE (lol contribs) 20:19 Aug 20, 2009
You're right. Anyway. I got this. Hold on to your hats. --C:\syndrome\_ 19:53, September 14, 2009 (UTC)
Humour: 1 Wat.

This page looks like vanity. Read our vanity policy and then come back. Ready? Good. Now, I read the article, and I still don't know what it's about. Is it a religion? A person? A group of people? Wikipedia is no use here (strike one on the test for vanity), as searching for Raka only returns towns and Islamic prayer. Google has a lot of hits for "Raka" but it doesn't shed any light on what the crap you're talking about, unless you mean a web design studio or a rice field or this guy (strike two). Strikes three and four are from whether or not the article is funny, but dude, how can it be funny if there are no jokes in it? I'm not trying to be mean, but seriously, a joke requires a setup followed by an unexpected twist (also known as a punchline), but there's just none of that here. It's just a random mess of sentences, and the subject changes from a person to a concept to an adjective with no indication of what's going on. Sorry if I'm being too harsh, but it's so incoherent that it doesn't even look intentionally bad. It just looks... bad.

Let's pretend for a moment that everyone knows about Raka (although I'm still not sure whether it's animal, mineral or vegetable). What does this article say about Raka to make it funny? I don't know. I don't see how this article relates to a Raka. You could take the word "Raka" in replace every instance of it with something else and it would make just as much sense. You could say "Chuck Norris", or "my enormous penis". If you have a friend nicknamed Raka, he might think this article is hilarious, but the rest of us are left scratching our heads and blaming ourselves for reading to the end.

Concept: 1 I really don't see how you can go anywhere with this concept. If you insisted on writing an article about "Raka", you'd first have to provide a definition, description and maybe some links so we know what you're talking about. Then you'd have to write something funny. Have you read UN:How you might go about writing something that is funny, rather than writing something that is stupid, which would of course in no way imply that you are stupid, although if you are, we mean no offense? It really is a good guide. If you have read it, read it again and really dig it this time.
Prose and formatting: 3 Your spelling is good, but the prose and formatting are weird, with red announcements jumping in at random times, and a whole lot of whitespace which only demonstrates how disjointed and incoherent the article is.
Images: 2 The picture of the random guy only cements my theory that you wrote an article about your friend. The rest of the pictures don't help at all, because as I said before, I have no idea WTF is going on here.
Miscellaneous: 5 E for effort.
Final Score: 12 I'm not trying to diss you, but this really isn't an Uncyclopedia article, although it might make a good cover for a Myspace page or a Facebook group. I just think you're a little confused about what Uncyclopedia is here for. Now don't let mean ol' Syndrome's words discourage you. Everyone writes a crappy first article. Just ask any admin to show you theirs. It just takes a little practice, and a little focus on humor.
Reviewer: --C:\syndrome\_ 20:23, September 14, 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools