Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Slug

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 10:23, November 24, 2007 by Under user (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit Slug

Not mine but I want to improve it.--I like cheese 20:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Humour: 4 I'm feeling generous. Far too much of this article seems pointless, and is unfunny, but there are occasional moments in it.
Concept: 3 Doesn't really seem to have a central concept. Flits from idea to idea like a sluggish butterfly or something. A more coherent central idea would certainly help this.
Prose and formatting: 5 Competent for the most part, and formatting's fine enough, but it's not well written, and the text pics are way too much.
Images: 4 Marks for having some, and them being relevant. Not many marks as they aren't funny or captioned well, and don't add to the article.
Miscellaneous: 4 Average of other marks
Final Score: 20 This could definitely do with a lot of improvement, so if you want to take it on, good luck to you. Aim for a coherent central idea that you can use to hang the article from, which aids readability no end. After that, see comments below.
Reviewer: --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 10:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


Just a couple of comments:

  1. Lose most of the text pics. Maybe pick the best and keep it, but there are too many and they break up any flow it may have had.
  2. Similarly, lose the song thingy. That's crap, pointless, and nearly put me off reading any further.
  3. And a couple of sections below it - the 'evil' one, and the 'further investigations' one - unless you use that second one as part of your concept (the article is written by a slug expert who knows so much about them he's paranoid he's turning into one, it gets gradually worse as the article progresses, until by the end he's trying all the tests he can think of to prove he's not a slug. Actually, that sounds a bit like Cajek's Object Permanence but you get the idea). But yeah, probably lose that section.
  4. You'll have to re-work any section you do keep to fit in with your take on the article, but try to keep any lines that make you laugh - as long as you can make them seem in context. Keeping in a line that you like that doesn't fit just looks bad. Be ruthless.

Basically, the concept is key. Once you work out the direction you want your article to take, structuring it and hanging jokes off it should become easier. I'll leave it there for now, but if you get started and want a few more pointers, give me a yell on my talk page and I'll take another look and see what I can offer. (As long as I'm not rushed at work - they reckon things will start calming down soon!)

Remember, this is only my opinion, others are available, and good luck! --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 10:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal tools
projects