Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Sherlock Holmes

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Sherlock Holmes

Even though I rewrote it, this still needs an in-depth review. As specific as possible, please. Thank you. MacMania 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC) User:POTR/Template:PEEing

Humour: 7 Which is probably a misleading score, as the amount of laughs and smiles I got from the article should put this at a 7.5 easily, but I've been a little mean as some of the humour is derived from in-jokes, or meta humour, or however else you want to describe laughing at the recent outbreak of stupidity over the use of 1st person narrative.

I am normally a critic of the lead-in quote, as more often than not they are unfunny and actually destroy your layout and the appeal of the article as opposed to making people want to read it. This, however is one of the exceptions. It is a brilliant intro to the remainder of the article.

Concept: 8 Brilliantly executed, and again making me jealous that I didn't do this article myself. The capturing the flavour from the eye of Watson/interview with Holmes as a rewrite of the article is spectacular.

One thing that may be able to give you a bit of a boost is bringing in something similar to Dissociative Identity Disorder. This article (DID, not SH) is stupid in and of itself, but what makes it zing is the history of the article, which you'd only find by actually going in to revert back to a better version. I would be adding a link back to one of the earlier incarnations of the article to show why Watson had to re-write it.

And as I've said elsewhere, get more into the nitty gritty stupidity of the character and all his flaws. One glaring omission from here is Holmes' amazing over-estimation of his own importance. Go deep!

Prose and formatting: 8.5 Spelling is fantastic. I'd probably use encyclopaedic and encyclopaedia, or even bring æ back to life for a short visit. Keeping in mind that these gentlemen are both of an era where the rules of grammar are much more strictly adhered to then today. I would also suggest running through it and killing your passive sentences. I know it's being overly finicky, but it fits in with the humour a tad more.

Otherwise minor things.

  • Redlinks. If where they direct to doesn't exist, then use these as a source of humour. Direct Prudent to Sex and that kind of thing.
  • Small text for footnotes.
  • Size of images (see below)
  • Lots of strikethrough. (I know why, but it looks ugly on screen.)
  • Something else but can't remember what it was.
Images: 6 That first image is horrible, but then again it's meant to be. There is nothing wrong with the choice of images throughout, but they should be a more uniform size. The Moriarty vampire, and I'd love to know what trashy rip-off brought that to life, is a fantastic image, but it takes up most of the monitor when I'm reading it, and the humour in this article is driven by the text. Having an image dominate the screen means that you lose the wit in the text itself.

And it needs a couple more images. At least 1 image per number of times you hit page down to read through the article.

Miscellaneous: 8 Overall score of the article, which is again a misnomer as that would suggest that I'd be voting it for FA, but although it's close it's not quite there yet. What I need to see to push this over the line is just a little more polish. It's nearly there, but not quite yet. (And I am going to be watching it!)
Final Score: 37.5 Ummm, yeah, I never really know what to say in this section as I usually say it all under miscellaneous. Hmmm.... how about that local sports team?
Reviewer: Pup t 08:16, 31/07/2009
Personal tools