Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Sun Bee

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 19:10, September 20, 2009 by Syndrome (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit Sun Bee

This is my first article here (with help), and I hope somebody would like to review it. You don't have to be an entomologist or paleontologist to do it. Why do I need to provide this? 05:27, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do it. [/zh] 07:46 September 15

Sorry, no time. [/zh] 08:40 September 15
Thanks for the thought. I could review it myself but, hmm, that would be kind of pointless, wouldn't it? WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 22:03, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, and commenting on it makes it look like the most recent request so it might take even longer. I could review it if you want, but it would be strange since I kind of watched it grow up. --C:\syndrome\_ 03:27, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
Ah, my comment's only a few hours after the other user's comment, so I don't think it makes that much difference. If you want to review it, go for it! WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 03:45, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
Fine, I'll review it. Quit looking at me like that. --C:\syndrome\_ 01:38, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the article! I just read your review, so it will take me some time to absorb and consider it all. But thanks for taking the time! WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 02:50, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
Humour: 6 Okay, I know you and you know me (or at least you should by now from the number of times I've drugged you and forced you into my van) so let's get down to business.

The Lead wasn't funny (except for the footnotes which I'll get to later), which is to be expected since the topic is something you made up and you need to take some time to let us know what you're talking about. I like the infobox, although it's a little weird that you drop the flaming bee right there and never say much about it again.

Origins: These pseudo-encyclopedic background sections are rarely funny, so thanks for keeping it short. I like the use of [[HTBFANJS#escalation|escalation]] (too lazy to find the appropriate section and link to it; you know where it is) but it doesn't really escalate all that much. In fact, the only funny item on the list is the last one. Come on, man, escalate like there's a cold war going on! If you want to insist that maybe they got their powers from being too hot or burnt, add another sentence justifying how that might be possible.

The Clovis People: It's a pretty cruel red herring to mention Folsom Prison and then just leave it at that. It would be cool if you actually referenced, the song, maybe quoting someone in the same meter or having him talk in some the forlorn tough guy tone as if he's actually in the prison. Now, I done scolded you about this quote. The innuendo here is really weak and confusing, and the part about throwing the ball is not sexy at all, but instead gives a rather painful mental image. Really, take a page from our article on sexual innuendo (link to the featured version) or skip the innuendo completely, because right now it's like when your weird uncle makes a joke about sex. It's not really funny and it just makes you and your parents uncomfortable.

The sun bee and the wolf: A couple of confusing things: You say that the wolf evolved with the neanderthals but then switched over to the sapiens. Why didn't they like neanderthals anymore? And although it's amusing that the sapiens would want to preserve their garbage, to me, throwing something in a pit is that same as burying it. Maybe you could think of another (importantly, funny) method of preserving artifacts? Having said that, although the exposition here is cool, there's not really any humor until the end. How does that make you feel?

The death of the Neanderthal and the sun bee: Throw in a footnote to explain the pink flame tree, because that doesn't make sense by itself. I'd also suggest taking out the list of drinks used to catch the bees, because it doesn't add anything to the article.

Footnotes: I like the footnotes, especially the etymology you try to throw in along with the entomology. But some of them (#2 and #6) are just plain unfunny. And I have to disagree with the one about the Chow Chows on a scientific basis: although it looks like you're trying to make a weak pun on "chow", the species isn't that old, and they look so small and cute because of pedomorphism, which is my new favorite word, incidentally.

Concept: 4 The problems with writing about something you just made up are you don't have any source material to work with or make fun of as needed, and you have to spend a lot of energy simply justifying the article's existence. That's what I felt about the article as a whole: a detailed lie to justify a fictional species's place in history. Now that you've got that out of the way, maybe you want to add a section or two just for the sake of being funny, a la Bears? Or not. Whatever.
Prose and formatting: 8 I think I saw a grammatical error somewhere. Too lazy to find it again.
Images: 5 The first image would be cool if it actually looked like a cave drawing. (FYI, you could have just uploaded the black image over the original. Now the original's orphaned and will probably be deleted by a passing admin.) You also need more images, because the article looks kind of barren with the only images inside the infobox.
Miscellaneous: 7 Score inflated because I like this article, despite all my gripes. It's no FA, but I don't think it's bad.
Final Score: 30 This is really good for a first article. You don't have to make this perfect, in fact, it's perfectly normal for first articles to suck horribly. Now that you're pushed the first one out, I look forward to seeing what else you drop off here at Uncyclopedia.
Reviewer: --C:\syndrome\_ 02:40, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects