Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/The Tempest

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit The Tempest

Having actually studied the tempest for school, and getting a decent mark out of it, I think it's safe to say that I got this pretty much down pat. I know it lacks pictures, but the plotline runs so close to the actual story of the tempest that it's very funny if you'd actually read the play. So comment nicely, and suggest some stuff.--Garionepsilon 11:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not evil, just blunt. You will have to work on this for a bit more, and then probably resubmit it for a new review. You need more pics. That's why I added the template {{AAP}} to it. That way, some friendly individual will take a look at it, and possibly add pictures to it. -- DameViktoria Heart_anim.gif Icons-flag-gb - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 13:28, 28 Feb
Humour: 6 To be honest, it did have it's moments, but it's not hilarious. I have a hard time pinpointing it, but one could say that my mind can get the humour better, since I have a strong knowledge of the Bard's works and know the Tempest well enough to get the idea.
Concept: 7.5 I admire you for the attempt to derive humour from Shakespeare. It's something that requires a better grasp of language than an average Uncyclopedian has, and gives hope to us grammar nazis. Ah well, but I have a bad habit of ranting... Back to the concept. Great idea, the execution is missing something that would make the article great, though. I almost suggest looking at how the other Wiki does it. It won't hurt to see what the structure of a "serious" articles is.
Prose and formatting: 6 The low score is due to the structure. You could test how the article would look like for example if the plot summary would be divided into subtopics by act, to give the reader's eyes a bit more places to rest. As it is now, it is quite intimidating for the casual reader's eyes. Also, the summary, criticism and adaptations, though good, are not enough to give the article it's wings. It could be expanded by adding something to balance off the summary's massive proportions. Again, steal ideas from the other Wiki, and see if you can derive some more humour from it.
Images: 2 Unfortunately, you will need more images. A good image or two will support the text and give the article more life. Don't be afraid to "borrow" a good image you think will fit if you find one elsewhere in another article. The caption in the existing picture is rather obvious, but not bad. You'll need a wee bit more Shakespearean flavour in the mix, though.
Miscellaneous: 5.4 The Bard's work is considered to be world class literature. This means I admire all who attempt derive parody from it. Especially the lesser highlighted works. We all know Hamlet, the Midsummer's Dream and the Scottish Play if not by heart, enough to recognise the basic outline of the story. The lesser known works and even some fictitious work (such as the "sonnets") require a good basic knowledge of Shakespeare and the culture of his time. Not all can do it. You tried and didn't do too bad. Keep up the good work...
Final Score: 26.9 Overall, the article isn't as bad as one might think based on the score. It just gives the impression that it needs more work. Give it a bit of a mucking up and resubmit it for a review when you think it's done to get some more ideas.
Reviewer: -- DameViktoria Heart_anim.gif Icons-flag-gb - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 13:28, 28 Feb
Personal tools