Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/The Descent

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit The Descent

Essentially made up, very little of the real movie remains. That's a good thing right?

orian57 11:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Humour: 7 It's pretty decent, good if not brilliant. Actually, it is closer to brilliant than you might think - the way that you narrate the piece really helps with humour. Although there isn't any side-splittingly humourous lines or whatnot in there, the whole thing pieces together smoothly to create an entire article that, while not overly funny in any one area, seams together well to create a growing smirk on the reader's face. It could use a bit more text though for that extra kick, definitely.
Concept: 7 It's a better concept than just a plain article on the movie, definitely. You've done a good job referencing wise, and although it could use another couple of paragraphs, it's plenty fine as it is right now. The only thing I would say with the concept is that it feels a little random and spread out, but that can be easily fixed.
Prose and formatting: 5 This is where there is a bit of a problem. Starting from that annoting whitespace and lack of an emboldened title at the top, the page just looks somewhat messy. Your text - what with spelling, grammar, sentence structure et al - is alright, it's just your formatting. It looks cluttered and as if everything is in the wrong place. (Re)moving images and templates should fix that right up, however.
Images: 7 The images you currently have are exceedingly funny, very related to the article you are writing and have good captions. However, what's throwing you off here is the amount. Four images plus three templates is really too much for an article of this size (and most articles, really), so IMO you need to kill a couple of them. Definitely leave the one in the infobox though, that's just right for that type of image.
Miscellaneous: 6.5 n/a
Final Score: 32.5 This isn't VFH ready yet, as it isn't polished enough, but it's certainly better than most. Just needs a bit more work and touching up IMO.
Reviewer: –—Hv (talk) 1/04 17:09
Personal tools