Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnBooks:Daddy's New Wife - Philip

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit UnBooks:Daddy's New Wife - Philip

Ok so I came across this in Nameable's list of articles and I decided to help him out with it because it's got a good concept. I'm pretty sure I've made it better, nameable seems to think so too. But I'm not confident it's at it's best just yet. Thanks in advance, Cheif (or Puppy. Or anyone else that's actually bothering to do pee reviews.)    Orian57    Talk   Union pink 10:56 5 August 2009

This is Cheif (that's my android name). I have this one. How mega. --ChiefjusticeDS 17:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Mega! :D    Orian57    Talk   Union pink 17:48 5 August 2009
Humour: 9 OK, the humour in here is pretty impressive and exactly what I have come to expect of you Orian. However there are a couple of issues that interfere with my enjoyment of the article. You need to take another look at the product placement joke, while I understand where you are going with it, it needs some work before it is that funny. Currently it just feels unnecessary and a distraction from the main story-line, while it is OK to just have a random joke in an article, in an UnBook you need to justify it's inclusion. Is there a reason for the product placement? If so tell us in the preamble. Also I think you should note that Rugby league isn't a brand so you should reconsider the caption on that image. Also, product placement does refer to products only, otherwise it is advertising of an organisation which is obviously totally different. The second problem is that a couple of the jokes feel tacked on rather than integral to the plot. The article could do with a little bit of trimming around the edges.
Concept: 9 I like the idea behind the article and think you execute it in a pretty good way. My issue here is with the tone more than anything else, if you are going to utilise a free indirect style to provide the humour in your article then you need to be consistent with it. There are a couple of instances where you slip into either the first or third person and the tone jolts abruptly. You need to read through and iron these out as they are careless mistakes, but fortunately very easy to sort out. If you are unsure where you lose your tone then you have to read and make sure that what you are reading conforms to the rest of the article, the Free Indirect style is one of English's most difficult and you need to ensure you carry it off successfully.
Prose and formatting: 7 Yes, characteristically slack here Orian, not bad enough to obstruct the enjoyment of the article but bad enough to drive me to correct while I review. Don't start sentences with 'and' it just raises my blood pressure! Make sure your sentences are constructed properly and make sure you aren't comma splicing. I know it is difficult to do while writing, but that is why you need to do some proofreading afterwards. I know it isn't fun but it is necessary, at least to score higher than a 7 in this category. Your formatting is OK though you need to include a couple more line breaks as the prose can get a bit on the large side. Not totally necessary, or, perhaps desirable, I leave it up to you. There are plenty of pictures and you don't, in my view, need to add anymore.
Images: 8 This score is mostly because, the images are fine, but the complimenting captions need to be addressed, the rugby image especially, could be infinitely better than it is currently. The windows one in OK, but still in need of work. The book cover image is fine and nothing needs to be done to that, I would just encourage you to consider changing the others, or at least their captions.
Miscellaneous: 8 My overall grade of the article
Final Score: 41 This is pretty good and is a genuinely amusing article. There are just lots of very minor problems which are a real drag factor on it's overall score. A bit of work and some polish is all that is needed to fulfill the potential this article currently has. It seems to be ready to be really funny, but isn't quite there yet.
Reviewer: --ChiefjusticeDS 19:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools