Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Spanish invasion of everywhere

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Spanish invasion of everywhere

Megaman2000 16:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Concept: 2.5 The article is complete nonsense. Generally, the truth is funnier than outright lies, especially incoherent nonsense. Almost always, the reader needs to be able to mentally the follow the article. Contradiction, excessive hyperbole, and jumping over all the place make it difficult for the reader to follow what you are writing.

The subject of this more or less dooms it to unfunniness. This site is mainly about satire, which is making fun of existent things. Fiction might be ok under certain conditions, but the concept of this just doesn't work. Unfortunately, I really don't think this article is savable. You might want to consult HTBFANJS for hints on article writing and Best of for examples of good articles.

On the plus side, there does seem to be some underlying consistency within this article; the main story arc is sorta followable. If you cut out the lists, replace random characters with less random ones, and clean up the article, it might be sorta entertaining. That said, it will require alot of work, and I don't think you can get a work of pure fiction to the level of "good article" on this site.

Additionally, your article makes several other concept "errors" which you should avoid in the future:

Random name dropping Don't insert celebrities into your article for the sake of inserting celebrities. Only do so when its funny.

Avoid lists There are times in which lists are appropriate. However, if the information can be done better with paragraphs, do so. Lists tend to accumulate random items, and lists tend to contain information the reader doesn't care about. Your reader normally does not read a list of random items.
Prose and Formatting: 4 DISCLAIMER due to the weak underlying concept, I'd advise you to work on other articles. Therefore, you probably shouldn't spend your time fixing these errors. I am listing them mainly for reference purposes for your future articles.

Your article suffers from bad spelling and grammar. A simple spell check should fix most of that. Proper names are always capitalized. I noticed that "fernando" was in lower case more often than not.

Also, your article has too many red links. Red links look like formatting errors to most experienced readers, try to avoid them except when they are intentional.

Try to spread the images out more evenly. If you decide to keep working on this, you might want to add more images.

Don't begin with a header, you should go header quotes, then intro, then your first section header. Also, I generally advise against header quotes for the reason that they make "deadpan entry" impossible, but I digress.

You have several one line paragraphs in your article. Try to avoid really short paragraphs, and especially avoid series of really short paragraphs.

Also, you generally should incorporate some subheaders in your article ====Subsection Header Here===. Right now, it doesn't look too header heavy, but on shorter articles, if you don't use subsection headers, your article will often look ugly because of too many headers.

Add a "See Also" section for related links. It makes the article look longer, and if its missing, your article won't look right.

Whenever you have an image in a list, put the image on the right. As a rule, you have a bit more than half of the images on the right, and a bit less than half on the left. The first image and images in lists should generally be on the right. Position the other images so that they alternate sides and its about even between sides, as much as is possible. Also, if an image goes thru a section or subsection header, it generally looks better on the right.

Avoid extra white space. One blank line between paragraphs, section headers, et cetera is enough. You do not need blank lines before or after thumbnailed images.
Images: 5 You have images, but none of them are very funny. On the plus side, you do have images of the actual subject matter, which is generally needed in an article. The first one is funny in and off itself, but I think it is too outlandish with its current caption. It might be keepable, but it might also be too outlandish.

The second one isn't very funny, its a simple MS paint stretch of a race driver, who I assume is named Fernando. The "show a different person with the same name" idea sometimes works, but it can also come off bad. Particularly then its done with the subject of the article, or when the article already has alot of silliness.

The 3rd one is a bit cliche. It might work in a good version of this article, but it might also come across as too name drop-y.

The 4th one is probably too outlandish for the context. It goes beyond believability into excessive hyperbole.
Humour: 2 Basically, what I said in the comments section. Also, as it stands, the article feels like it is way too long. Even for those that find nonsense funny, reading through this feels like work. If the quality is improved and nonsense purged, that might go away. But, like I said earlier, that might be alot of work for little benefit.
Improvability Score: 2 I really don't think this article can be fixed without alot of work. Also, even with a cleanup and we-working, the underlying concept is too fictional. If you want to keep this article, you probably should userspace it. Otherwise, it might be deleted on VFD, and VFD if often too fast for authors to have a chance to defend their articles.
Final Score: 15.5 I'd advise cutting your losses on this one.
Reviewer: --Mnbvcxz 02:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools