Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/The Sack of Rome

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit The Sack of Rome

It was nommed before it was finished and then understandably stiffed. But I kind of like it.

Sog1970 20:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm disgusted that this is still here, and I invite you to blame me completely. I'll do it right now. --ChiefjusticeDS 19:31, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Humour: 4 Right, the humour here is OK, but in need of some improvement. Ultimately the difficulty is that the intended direction of the article is plain enough, but the execution isn't right. The first thing to do is to take the article as a whole and go through it with HTBFANJS as a reference. The biggest problem for me was incoherence and poor joke execution. My first point of advice would be to reconsider the way the article goes with the humour. To speak more plainly you need to rethink what to make your jokes about. It is fair enough to include the Gaul's and to reference Asterix and Obelix in the text. However you should try to satirise the actual historic events rather than make up something. For example, if you were talking about the conclusion of the second world war it would be better to say: "Hitler was defeated by the united forces of the USA and Great Britian. Some people in the US have held onto this event as it was the most recent point in history where the Americans won a war and everyone agreed that it was basically a good thing, except Hitler, but he was too dead to care." It would be less amusing to say: "Hitler lost because the magic camel David walked into his living room and tore up his plans, so nobody knew where to send the soldiers so they all just surrendered and then Hitler was trampled to death by the camel." While these examples are very extreme, you get the point. If there is something there to satirise, it is always preferable to use that rather than to make up something. Take a look at the Wikipedia articles and use them as a framework for your article. Your punchlines could also do with being a bit more subtle, especially if you are going to use the encyclopedic tone.
Concept: 7 Your concept is fine, I think there is a lot of scope on Uncyclopedia for satirical explanations of history. What loses you marks is your tone. In general you do reasonably well with the tone, but you should still try to eliminate problems where they do occur. Even if you aren't being serious try to sound professional regardless, I'm sure you're aware of that. If you are unsure you shhould scan your way through articles written in a similar vein that were featured.
Prose and formatting: 8 Your prose are pretty good and all I can recommend is a quick proofread to make sure you catch any typos and difficulties that remain. Your main difficulty is with the formatting, you have an awful lot of images and, in some places, the text feels like an addition to the images, try and avoid this, you have some room so try and space them out a bit. Otherwise the only thing to consider is the size of your images, a few are pretty small, could you make them a bit bigger?
Images: 7 The images are OK, but I think you could do better in a couple of instances, be creative in your image choices and do your best to glean as much humour from them as possible. Your current images are pretty generic, though they are captioned very well, and they could be slightly better, otherwise you are OK here.
Miscellaneous: 6 My overall grade of the article.
Final Score: 32 You demonstrate some good writing ability here and you definitely have the potential to turn this article into something really special. However you do need to consider some changes, most cosmetic, one slightly deeper, before you can reach that stage. Overall this is a good try, and with some more work could be even better. As usual I can be found on my talk page, so feel free to contact me with questions and queries. Good luck making any changes.
Reviewer: --ChiefjusticeDS 20:38, September 14, 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools