Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Twilight

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 19:42, April 25, 2008 by Heerenveen (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Twilight

FairyGarland 07:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Humour: 6 It's better than it looks, that's the first thing that's readily appraent when you look at the article. Right now it's the formatting that's letting this down, as I quite like the writing here really. Such lines as "she seems to have more guys around her than a local pub" made me smile, which is good. I feel its a fair bit too straight-laced at the minute, with too many "facts" (just plain lying sentences that aren't really jokes) and not enough attempts at jokes. I would also try to expand the plot section, as this should really be the most in-depth section, and four lines isn't really enough. I like how you've started though, keep it up!
Concept: 6 It's an alright concept, not brilliant, but I guess that its more than workable since you've managed to get some good lines out of it, which I probably wouldn't be able to do. Like I say the plot section needs to be fleshed out quite a lot, and you could probably expand into "Reception" or something, but that's about it, because other than that, I don't really see what you could do with this concept, as it just feels too straight-laced.
Prose and formatting: 4 This is your main problem, I feel. First things you really see are the quotes and whitespace; these really need to be eliminated to give your article a more professional look at the first glance – most articles have one quote maximum. There is the mishap with regards to spelling in the article, such as "Adaption" when it should be "Adaptation", but only minor quibbles here, its your formatting more than the prose. Luckily, this is the easiest part to fix - you just need to tidy the article up somewhat to make it look less scruffy and more professional. This will probably increase your other scores a bit as well.
Images: 6 The images are alright here. They aren't the funniest in the world, and they don't have captions that are instant classic one-liners, but they do the job they are supposed to servicably, adding an extra dimension to the article as well as doing a good job at trying to describe the article's subject. It might not get the greatest score in the world, but they're more than good enough, and I don't see how - barring a magnificent potatochop - you can improve these.
Miscellaneous: 5.5 n/a
Final Score: 27.5 I like this quite a fair bit. It's not VFH quality, but tidy it up, expand the plot, and you'll have a nice little article.
Reviewer: –—Hv (talk) 25/04 19:42
Personal tools
projects