Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Robitussin

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 22:05, February 20, 2009 by Sgtpanda (talk | contribs)

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


edit Robitussin

Guildensternenstein 19:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey just drive-in by here. I don't have time for a full review now, but if it is still not reviewed then maybe later. But I know you probably want your first feature, and a thing I would recommend, is that you make this less list based. I know it isn't really a list, but it is just section by section of little two line paragraphs. If you make it more encyclopedic it will get rid of alot of the white space. Other than that from what I read this would earn a high humor mark so good job there ~SirTagstitVFHNotMPEEINGCPTRotMBFF 02:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above about it's list-ishness. As for the concept, in reality Robitussin is a cough medicine that's misused for recreational purposes, and your article describes it as a cough medicine that's misused for recreational purposes. I'm all for subtle humour, but I think when you start with a concept like this, you could push it a bit more over the top in the contents. The contrast between the encyclopedic tone of the first part and the "Typical experience" section, in my opinion, doesn't really work. It reads like a collaboration work between two incompatible writers. I liked the circular slang terms in the last part, although that section could probably use some kind of secondary method of humour too. --Badgerfield 05:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I had actually thought that myself, Badgerfield, about the difference between the two sections. What I had initially planned was this great big lengthy thing involving trafficing and some sort of diagram of something between the local pharmacy where it is bought, the drive back from the pharmacy, and the basements of "tussin" abusers where it is used, or something. I was sort of pressed for time, however (I have to go to class at some point, you know) and so I wrote the "typical experience" bit fairly quickly. I thought it was funny in its own way (it's actually based partially on my own life experiences), and wanted to see how it would fair before attempting anything more/different. Who knows? Maybe people would suggest I either do the whole article like that or lose it completely, or keep the article as-is. But yeah. As for your other criticism, I tried to make it seem like some sort of hard-core drug. I did mention it's "other" use in the history section to a point, but doing that in my opinion is a hell of a lot better than making up some retarded-ass psuedo history involving the ancient Egyptians trying to invent a more eco-friendly alternative to kitten huffing, or something. So I'm really at a loss what to with it just now. But hey, that's what Pee Review is for, right? If either you or Tagstit or whomever could give it an in-depth review, I'm certainly willing to give this a good rewrite if that's what it takes. I like to think I'm striving for some sort of quality, after all. Thanks for the feedback, though.

--Guildensternenstein 05:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I might be too much of a newbie to manage a full review. I'm not big fan of stream of consciousness type articles either (huffing Egyptians and the like), but I guess I missed the hard core aspect you tried to convey (to me it now reads like a very safe substance that you can't OD with and has no side effects). Maybe you could expand on addictiveness (heroin type stuff) and physical effects (perhaps meth-like), and so on. If you want to keep the encyclopedic tone, I'd drop the typical experience and maybe rewrite it as a serious tone description about methods of acquiring, or a howto: type guide. Or something. Just because something is written in a dry tone (and without fucks) doesn't mean it can't be hilarious. --Badgerfield 06:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The cultural context and reference of a joke is important. I thought it was perhaps a medicine you can give to sick robots. --Romartus 13:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha clever. --Guildensternenstein 17:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

M'kay, I just rewrote a good portion of the article, and removed the "Typical Experience" bit. This is more-or-less what I originally had in mind, anyway. So yeah, if someone could give it a looksy that would be really awesome. Thanks.

--Guildensternenstein 20:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Humour: 4 Its slightly funny.
Concept: 7 Concept is good.
Prose and formatting: 10 Formatting is perfect
Images: 6 Images are good but don't always link to the text fully.
Miscellaneous: 6.8
Final Score: 33.8 Overall it is O.K.
Reviewer: Sgtpanda 22:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools