Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Shakespeare Authorship Debate
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
I'm actually pretty happy with this as it is, but I thought I'd better post it here because I tend to be totally blind to my own mistakes. So if nobody has any criticisms please feel free to nom it. --Black Flamingo 14:16, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
|Mind you, this tree is taken!|
Pee Review In Progress
This review is the property of:
|Humour:||6||A kind "average +". The article makes me smirk, with the occasional twisted smile when a joke finally dawns on this dull, de-caffeinated mind. The article is entertaining, but not the most obvious parody, and some of the jokes take a little longer than the average reader's attention span might tolerate.
All in all, the article isn't bad, I'd just throw in a little more “funny factor”, especially to longer paragraphs, to take the edge off of the text. Sadly, a lot of readers really don't care about long texts with finesse as much as a few cheap laughs.
|Concept:||8||Your article is "high brow" humour. I like that. Too few people give making an article more interesting more than a half-hearted attempt, for which I feel compelled to commend you. The approach is good, albeit a little lacking in delivery of the jokes within the article. Look if you could speed up the text where the punchlines happen, and slow down where the jokes are more intricate. The list of different authors' handwriting is funny, but it gets hard on the eyes to read through it without losing your place. More on prose and formatting below...|
|Prose and formatting:||7||The text gives off a whiff of attempted serious tone narration, but does occasionally stumble slightly over expressions that would have more grown up synonyms available. This is not really a flaw, just a minor deduction from your complete score. In general, your text is coherent and well punctuated, with very few obvious mistakes (of which I just corrected the spelling mistakes while I was at it).
One thing that can't stop haunting my little blonde mind, is your lack of a coherent "conclusion" section in the article. You do most definitely not have to name it "conclusion", but a paragraph or two that wrap the article up would give it a more coherent structure, and a visually appealing end. Maybe just throw together some of the existing bulk text into a few new sentences and be done with it, if you're feeling lazy, but consider it, for me. Pwease?
|Images:||5||I'm a little cruel with my scoring here. The images aren't bad or worse, they're just a little bit size-impaired. They could be a little larger. Check some featured articles (especially by really ancient established users, to get an idea of the common practice for article images.
Quality-wise, you're in the clear. Mostly. The images are just a teensy weensy bit tiny, in relation to the bulk of the text, and there might even be a possibility of cutting out an image or two, to focus the reader better on the text itself. I also would recommend increasing the remaining images in size by up to 200% or more, to make the entire article look more whole, and more in tone with other excellent articles on Uncyclopedia.
|Miscellaneous:||6.5||For an article that only requires minor fixing, this score is ok, I hope. As a whole, it was a pleasant, moderately entertaining and occasionally funny read. You can still work on the funny, but I doubt that's a problem, since I know I noticed your username in the Hall of Shame... Now, be a good string of text on my screen, and go pat yourself on the back for a good job!|
|Final Score:||32.5||I think you'll have a feature by the end of October if you tidy this up a little.|
|Reviewer:||*hugs* -- DameViktoria 21:29, 27 Sep|