Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/The Lorax (again)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit The Lorax

I changed the article according to a certain monkey's last review. I didn't make it an UnBook, though. It was kind of splitting the line between a historical essay and a story, and I decided that wasn't working so I took it in the direction of the essay. Anyway, I'm thinking of sending this to VFH, so questions/comments are welcome. --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 01:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll review this. — Sir Sycamore (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Humour: 5 Seems like a fairy ambitious piece, it seems not to work too well (at the moment). The most basic things here are problem, formatting looks very messy, particularly the images which are often splitting up the formatting particularly at the beginning where the second image splits the table of contents - Have a look at Oscar Wilde or some for the features, it does not have to be perfect, but it should look pretty tidy. I understand you are keen on VFH, but although some minor errors are alright this does looks a little rough cut. the second and most major gripe I have regard the prose, although there is an idea, the style you write it is pretty off putting, multiple uses of short syntax for example "Also, he was banal and brazen. And biting. That one got him in trouble more than once" - most of the article has this dodgy looking sentence structure, use of Ed speak which tends to be more stupid sounding that funny. Overall the prose needs tightened and a bit of a kicking to flow in a more consistent way.

A major factor is the convoluted quality, you have quite few tangents and references along with fairly childish humour - I kind of feel a central concept of what you wanted to do with this is either absent or has been lost whilst you have written it. As an advice it is better to start very simple and keep it that way, you'll then be able to weave in all the references you like and even more clever people will infer different things form your article - This means that you work your article up like a house, basic things first: Writing quality, Formatting, basic concept, rough idea of finished piece, accessibility. The latter seems to have been a little ignored, it feels a little closed throughout, I always add Wikipedia or external links to open out the article, along with a solid sense of structure. It feels to tangenty if that makes sense, I remember own of my personal favourites of mine Battleship Potemkin was pretty difficult to complete - the way I did was to make every section and paragraph Justify itself, the completed result is probably a little baffling, but I was really proud and felt I had done my best with it - this is how to get to the best possible level of quality, from there the article will be far from complete but the dusting off will be a lot more eased and people will help with this.

Concept: 5 There could be something very interesting here, It needs the machete and disciplined into a good state, As I mentioned before, work simple and the complex stuff can be woven in. The whole thing is not really funny or amusing, the jokes don't really have the impact, it does not "speak" to the reader. I usually come up with some ideas; however here I'm a little lost I'm afraid. In short it needs a lot more work. If it were my I would move it back to User:Syndrome/The Lorax and re work it, I think that there’s a lot of potential here, but I think this one will need some patience. If you would like, I can help with some of the prose if you'd like depending on how serious you are about getting this particular article featured.
Prose and formatting: 3.5 Pretty bad, I didn't enjoy reading it; it’s filled with tangents and references that seem to have no place, random throughout. Convoluted syntax, vaguely colloquial lexus mixing with formal writing. Colons ( : )should not be used to create the long sentences, use semi colons ( ; ) - they allow for longer sentences and justify long syntax more than a comma. This is a lot like how I write, as I have said before, it is incurable and is not a road to start on.
Images: 4 Generally seems a little remote/random, in one sense you are using the images in an almost narrative fashion (like an unbook) and in another they seem a tad random generally even for that. I would probably have around there to four images on an article of this length, the bottom one spills over badly. I would have them aligned right at 250px - I don't advocate much complexity here and recommend a straightforward look on an articles.
Miscellaneous: 5 Not too good here, but lots of potential. Now you seem to have an issue regarding this article and VFH, I assume that why you vandalised my userpage (In future use Margaret Thatcher - it's much more insulting) and made complaint on VFH. To speak briefly on authors aiming for VFH - don't. the best way is to write the best possible article you can, do not submit an article hoping to get "tips" on its improvement; when this goes on, the amendments have to fairly minor, spelling, a section not quite right etc. if the article requires significant work - that’s what happens, or you have to call it quits. You've had two reviews, neither suggested feature nomination, (Sir Judgements seemed pretty on the mark). Overall I think this article could be a feature, but it needs more work. I hope I'm not being too mean here; it’s just that it seems such a poor aim. As an example I one of my personal favourite writers is Lambic, he is, in my opinion, far better than the shoddy efforts of our "Rising stars" and he hasn’t got one feature or award.
Final Score: 22.5 I hope this is a bit of a springboard for you to go back over this article. Should you need any help or have questions do not hesitate to leave a note on my talk page
Reviewer: Sir Sycamore (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools