Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Uma Thurman

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 10:06, April 13, 2008 by Heerenveen (talk | contribs)

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


edit Uma Thurman

Hi, I made some pretty big improvemnts on Tony Visconti from doing Pee review; and I'm hoping to do the same with this. I've intentionally made the page look very much like a Wikipedia article and the foul smattering of racism is also intentional- I don't know if it may be a step to far. Thanks for your time.--Sycamore (Talk) 13:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Humour: 6 This doesn't really start all that well, but it gets better as it goes along. First things first, you need to change your first sentence - you say you're going for a Wikipedia-style article, but it just doesn't feel like that kind of style of opener, it's too rushed. Try something like "Uma Thurman (born ___________, on Krypton) is a ______________, who has been oft characterised as being hot, gangly and up for portraying any role that involved a distinctly "tranny" themes.", which just feels more encyclopedic and easier to read. The main article is better than this, however, especially the "Early Life" section, which I found was a bit less random than the rest of the article. The whole thing is a good satirisation of a Wikipedia article, which just happens to have Uma Thurman the subject. You need to make it satirise Thurman more in my opinion to make it funnier, but it's more than good enough now anyway.
Concept: 6 It's an OK concept. This kind of thing is your bog-standard Uncyc article, and this is becase it is a good reliable formula (not to mention the fact that it's what Uncyc was meant to do anyway - satirise en.wp). However, it's not especially inventive, and it's not something you can do something really original with, so I can only mark it down as an average concept. You've overcome this relatively well, however, pushing the concept very close to its limits.
Prose and formatting: 9 Very good here, no visible spelling or grammar mistakes that I could find while reading, good text formatting, nice use of (underused here IMO) infoboxes, images all in the right places, only the one red link, nice references, etc. etc. You obviously know the drill here, and that's good to see.
Images: 7 These are alright, in that they are about the subject of the article, and that they do a half decent job of description, but I have two thing syou could improve here: One, a lot of the images seem very samey, and repetitiveness can get on a reader's nerves very quickly, and two: most of them are just facial shots, which without brilliant captions just aren't that funny. Maybe try to photoshop one of the scenes you describe in the article? I'm not great with knowing images, just a suggestion.
Miscellaneous: 7 n/a
Final Score: 35 This, currently is an above average article that is much better than your standard Uncyc fare (though, if you want a comparison, having reviewed both I'd say Tony Visconti is better than this). I'm not sure that this will be VFH quality after improvement, but it's certainly got a bit of a chance. Good job so far, and good luck with the improvements!
Reviewer: –—Hv (talk) 13/04 10:06
Personal tools