Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/The Big Crunch
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Attn: Masters of the universe: HEELLLLPPP!!! Funnybony 07:19, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Oh the shift change pain.... oh and I'll get this one, 24 hours. --ChiefjusticeDS 21:19, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
|Humour:||4||OK, I found that your humour had its good parts and bad parts, and that the quality seemed to vary frequently throughout, there are a couple of things I would recommend you have a look at. The first thing I noticed was that the very premise of the article seemed inordinately difficult to grasp, for me at least. Perhaps I am being thick but by the end of the preamble I was still unsure what you wanted me to think the Big Crunch was. The importance of increasing the clarity of this section cannot be over-stated as the reader understanding what you are getting at is vital for the article's success. My advice is in two parts, the first concerns how to remedy the problem in the article; you should try to make your description in the preamble as short as you can, for instance if I was writing an article on Calendar's in the same tone as you are writing here, I would start by saying "Calendar's are one of the oldest and most ineffective ways of timing the 100 meter sprint" I would then go on to explain some of the more exciting features of calendar's. After I had given the reader this base I would then start a section in my article which explains exactly what a calendar is, now I can go into depth and the reader can accept this increased depth because they already have a basic idea. My reading of your article is that you are trying to go far too quickly and, as a result the reader goes into the first section uncertain of the subject matter and just becomes more confused as they read on. You may feel that the relevant information is there and I can confirm that it is, it just takes a lot of effort to extract it, so it isn't a matter of rewriting, but rather redrafting; simply because when voting on VFH people will be unwilling to sit and extract details from your article. So, the practical upshot of this is that you should try to make the preamble be just that, a preamble, and give details in the 'Overview' section. To avoid similar problems in future I would recommend that you always try to get someone to read your article while you are writing it, without you explaining anything, and get them to point out trouble spots, also it is a good idea to write as though the article will be read by someone who has no prior knowledge of the subject, not only does this mean that people who have no prior knowledge can read the article, but doing it properly means that both they and people who do know about the subject can both get something from the article. For instance, instead of saying "Darth Vader is a Sith lord" use something like "Darth Vader is a Sith lord, which is similar to a degree in pure evil".
Beyond the problem with your clarity I would tentatively suggest that you try to be a bit less random with the article, choose a setting and then run with it, there is nothing at all wrong with being random and I would encourage it in a lot of ways, but try to spread it out, when you load up a sentence with a lot of randomness then it feels a bit overpowering and you do this a couple of times. To avoid this try to plan your article carefully, make sure that you have enough to fill each section, if you are having difficulty, try asking around for some ideas.
Overall I feel that while your humour is in difficulty this could be solved by making it clearer and trying to expand a couple of parts, if you could scale back the randomness overloads that occur at times then you would be well on your way with this one.
|Concept:||6||The idea is good and, once I got what you were getting at (partly through the wikipedia link), it actually impressed me as an idea. The problem is that you are attempting to use both the first and third person tones, my recommendation is that you pick one and then stick with it, as a fusion of the two tends to sound unprofessional rather than amusing, I see what you are trying to do, but I would strongly recommend that you reconsider, and choose a single tone rather than using both. A quick word of advice for the encyclopaedic tone is that you should avoid profanity when using it, carefully examine the Wikipedia article for guidelines on it.|
|Prose and formatting:||6||Your prose aren't too bad, though you could expand the article a bit more. The main problem here is your grammar, more specifically your tenses, this contributes to the article being quite difficult to understand at times, happily this is quite easy to fix, simply read slowly and carefully, this, while quite dull will near guarantee a practically flawless final product as far as spelling and grammar goes. A good tip is to paste your article into a word processor, which can spell check for you and can even catch some grammar errors. Your image formatting could also do with a bit of tidying up, unless you are planning to make the article longer then I would suggest that you try spreading the images a bit more, especially around the template; the article would be a bit easier on the eye if you either remove or just shuffle them round a bit.|
|Images:||8||Now as far as images go you have a good range to use and besides the minor formatting problem you did well here, you just need to pull the rest of the article up to a similar standard. You should also remember your captions when you are working, they are reasonable now, but remember them if you decide to overhaul the humour or if you come up with any new jokes that you are having trouble expressing.|
|Miscellaneous:||6||My overall grade of the article.|
|Final Score:||30||Not a bad article, you are falling at some of the more important score which is why your score is not higher. Remember that any joke needs coherence to work, if someone doesn't get a joke then they won't laugh and nothing kills humour faster than being confused. However, while I have gushed criticism throughout this review, your article isn't as bad as it may seem, it just needs more time from you to fulfil its potential. If you have any questions or comments for me then you can direct them to my talk page. Good luck making any changes.|
|Reviewer:||--ChiefjusticeDS 20:38, January 25, 2010 (UTC)|