Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/The Doctor (2nd review)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit The Doctor

The article has been rewritten since its previous review (25/50). Hopefully it's slightly improved with regards to originality, formatting etc. MacMania 22:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in here, but, fancy doing a review? POTR's 6 Hats is sitting waiting for someone just like You, yes you.--ChiefjusticeDS 13:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Humour: 5 OK, as I read it, your humour is alright but seems confused and runs into problems at times. If this is supposed to be a character bio then you may as well, be consistent with it. As I read I felt as though you were unsure as to what you wanted to say who The Doctor, the preamble and the incarnations section demonstrate this very well. You imply that the doctor is not a fictional character at the top but then decide that he is in fact all these other people, which makes the name seem more of a title, is this what you intended?

Also you should have another look at the background section, I see what you are trying to do with this joke but in carrying it out you have made the section incoherent. Rather than saying that The Doctor will all the way through and confusing things, you would do better to write normally, since nothing is less funny than not having a clue what someone means. I know this would create some problems but you could excuse them by saying "For the sake of clarity, events of The Doctor's life will be related as though they happened last week, rather than in the Future, since trying to describe something that has yet to happen as though it will happen when it hasn't happened yet, would defeat the purpose of writing a character history as it hasn't yet happened. It's that simple" While that is only an example it would make the section far more coherent to read through and make it sound more professional.

Also if you are going to make things up then you should remain consistent about it, one point is how did the Doctor's name come about, was it made up by the BBC using Scotland Yard's only surviving comment about "Doctor Foreman" or does the Doctor simply make it up, this isn't made clear and as I read through your article these inconsistencies confused me and will undoubtedly confuse others.

Finally you should go through the incarnations of The Doctor with HTBFANJS open in another window asking yourself whether all of the incarnations conform, and if they don't then why not?

Concept: 7 Here I tend to score on your tone as well as your concept as I think it fits into this category better. The concept is easily recognisable, I mean it's Doctor Who, and it is a reasonable idea to create a character bio as though he were a real person. That said, if you are going to do that then you need to adopt an encyclopedic tone, that is: you stick to giving information, you sound like you know what you are talking about and you use humour subtly. While your article has by no means the worst encyclopedic tone I have ever seen it still needs work. The first thing I notice is the preamble: he could be this and he could be that. What you need to do is say "The Doctor is this, though he has also purported to have been this and this in the past (or future)". This needs to be replicated throughout and not deviated from as the best articles are consistent at all times. You do manage to do this very successfully at times thus the score. Be careful you don't edit out the good parts if you go back and have another look at this.
Prose and formatting: 6 Your prose are in need of some work, your tenses take a real hit early on with the background part. You need to read this through as "will have went to war" is ungrammatical and sounds idiotic more than anything else. Your spelling and grammar could be better elsewhere too, so a careful proofread would not be a bad idea. If you would rather not proofread it yourself then shove this {{Proofread}} template onto the page and a red pen waving nazi member of the Proofreading service will be along to assist you in the near future. Otherwise your image formatting could do with being less crowded, the Dalek advertisment looks like it is trying to climb into the character info box, and the images of all the Doctors appears to be trying to do the same thing, spread them out or make them smaller then spread them out. There are plenty of pictures for the amount of text, just make sure they aren't squeezed on top of each other.
Images: 7 You have plenty of images, but you need to ask yourself whether they are all necessary. They are good images and work well with Doctor Who in general but are they all directly related to The Doctor or the text that they are adjacent to. I feel that this is not the case and you could do with scrapping a couple of them, I leave whichever one that is up to you. Some of the captions are too long and could be an article on their own, if a caption has to be long make sure that we can read it clearly and aren't being distracted by other text, that the information has to be presented in a caption and that we aren't having to zoom in on the browser to read it.
Miscellaneous: 6 My overall grade of the article.
Final Score: 31 You have made a lot of changes since the last review by POTR, and the article is really beginning to take shape, you just need to make sure that you keep the effort up and work on the new problems so that you can fulfil this article's potential. I know this hasn't been a very positive review, despite the article having a lot going for it, but I was trying to focus on the problems, because if you are prepared to spruce the article up once then you are prepared to carry on doing so. It could be much much worse, keep your focus and you could make this into a very solid article indeed.
Reviewer: --ChiefjusticeDS 14:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects