Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Shit happens
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Clint945 00:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
|Prose and |
The writing style,
layout and overall
|4||I've given up explaining each time the way I do a review and I'm just going to go straight into this.
Spelling: Based upon a US English dictionary, we have: diarrhea; theroms; shitfree (I'll forgive it if hyphenated); tv (Acronyms should be capitalised); derivitive; Tonstant (invented word - I'll come back to this); unvariable; Godperson.
I thought I'd google the last one at I understood what you meant and I have seen godmother before and I understand the logic, but the only place that this appears as a single word is here.
And finally I'll come to sp33k. Not incorrect, but I'd prefer 5p34k.
Grammar: I'm not as picky here, but the one thing that keeps coming up in verbs in the passive voice. This method is commonly employed by noobs or pussies, would be better read as N00bs or pussies commonly employ this method,. In short, cut and paste the whole lot into a UN:PROOFand see what it spits out. Or put it through to
Layout: As layout is a fairly visual thing it is difficult to explain in words the issues that you have with layout, so I've done a little playing so you can see what I'm talking about.
Now you can then use the quotes as lead-in to each chapter, rather than a huge chunk of them at the start. Of course, if you're putting quotes in they better be funny.
Writing style: there are a lot of very brief paragraphs packed one on top of the other, and a couple of rather dull lists in the centre. The tone starts off well, but slowly degenerates. As this is a piece about a philosophical, scientific and mathematical concept, this should have a much more encyclopaedic tone.
Also see humour stuff down below.
How good an idea
is behind the article?
|6||I'm half hearted about what I should give you as a score for concept. That fact that you've taken a relatively dull saying and managed to stretch it out to the length of an article is impressive, but you've done this by fleshing it out with a bundle of stuff that doesn't all relate back to the topic. The sections # 4 Shit that has Happened and # 5 Shit that Will Happen both have nothing to o with what you're talking about.
I can see this concept being used really well and making a big thing of the effect this had in psychological circles or in the philosophic community. Experiments to disprove the theory ending in disaster and lots of shit.
How funny is it?
Why is it funny?
How can it be funnier?
|5||I didn't find much to laugh at in here at all, and the extreme over-use of in-jokes makes it hard to read through. Read through HTBFANJS to get a bit of an idea of how to use humour techniques to their greatest effect.
The one thing that I will point out here is the Be serious about silly things. This is a Silly saying, there is nothing deep and meaningful about it. It's a throwaway line. So if you can describe how this line has shaped the thinking and development of Western civilisation starting from the Greek Philosophers and ending up being incorporated into the Freudian psychology and the theory of relativity.
I like the mathematical proof. Get rid of Tonstant though, as it ruins the joke. Instead use t for time in it's place. And finally make it so your end result does not have the addition symbol in the middle of it as it weakens the joke.
The flip-side of the humour thing is you have completely ignored the The "@#$%^&*" Rule. Mentions of anything related to shock porn should be removed from the article unless it makes sense in context.
UnNews:Horrific rape was really victim's own fault for dressing like a slut has raised a little controversy recently in this regard. Now I have to admit that I don't like this article personally, but the dark humour in here means that the mention of rape is suitable, even if nasty. Dungeons and Dragons on the other hand is an example of where it shouldn't be used, as this article has veered completely off point and degenerated into some pre-pubescent spank fantasy.
In your article is there any reason why sex should be brought up? If you mention scatology, then yes, but I'd personally suggest steering away from there otherwise you'll start to head toward VFD rather than VFH.
How are the images?
Are they relevant,
with good quality
|4||So overall there's not enough images, especially as the article can't stand on it's own merit. So going through one at a time.
The article's overall
quality - that indefinable
|4.5||Okay, I wrote this review over a course of two days. The first time I wrote it my ISP cut me off have way through and I got just a teeny bit homicidal. Now I've had a chance to sit back and relax and look at it again with a calmer mind I've actually moved the score here from a 3 up to a 4.5. My commentary hasn't changed much though.
I don't use an average of my scores for the miscellaneous. The problem here is that you have the potential to have a really good, witty, snappy article. You have a fantastic topic and there's so much that can be done with it. But you wrote this when you were bored at 2am.
In short I was expecting something good when I saw Shit Happens, and you've disappointed me. But as the Descartes famously said, "La merde se produit." Or in Latin "fimus evenio." (I used online translators for both of these, so don't blame me if they're not perfect trnslations.
How much can it be
improved and what
are the most important
areas to work on.
|23.5||Go through this with a pair of scissors. Anything that is not fantastic or relating back to the topic, chop it out. Create a concept in your mind.
Start from when it was invented, who famously used it. Build an historical timeline around it.
What decisions or policies were based around the concept? When the NASA shuttle blew up, what was the comment from the (then) head of NASA? What was the real justification for the Gulf war (not to be confused with the Iraq war of 1991)?
Once you've got all this in place, then you should be sorted.
|Reviewer:||Pup t 23:00, 22/07/2009|