Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnNews:Researchers make breakthrough in UFO research

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit UnNews:Researchers make breakthrough in UFO research

Battlesheep 03:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Humour: 2 Well, you didn't do so good. I gave your humor score a "2," which translates as "probably a candidate for speedy deletion." The reasoning for this comes to one very big reason: it is little more than a glorified one-liner, and an in-jokey one-liner at that. To fix this (and save your article from the awful grip of VFD), you need to start over. That's right, start over. Purge the article of Captain Obvious, and write about... anything other than in-jokes. Expand, add some backstory, cover all the angles, i.e., "Who are the scientists who made the breakthrough?" and "What is the opinion of the UFO community on this breakthrough?" and also "Does anyone have any juicy moral foibles or any skeletons in their closets?" Questions like these add interest to the story, while giving you the chance to write about more than just "the big announcement." These techniques are used by all the good reporters at UnNews, and if you use them, will make you a good reporter as well.
Concept: 1 0/5 for your concept, 1/5 for your execution. I give you 0/5 (which I never give) because the joke of the article stub is based on a done-to-death in-joke, Captain Obvious. When I was first starting out on Uncyc, I admit I willingly left Captain Obvious quotes on every page I could find. I thought it was awfully funny until one of the admins banned me for a week. My advice is this: NO Captain Obvious, NO grues, NO Oscar Wilde, NO Chuck Norris, NO kitten huffing, and NO Russian Reversal. They are not funny. Instead, I would base my UnNews on something in the title, hmm, something like... I've got it! How's this for an article's concept: Researchers make some sort of hilarious discovery about UFOs. The joke could be xenophobic, scatological, ANYTHING but in-jokey.
Prose and formatting: 3 Another low score, I'm afraid. On the subject of prose, you did poorly for several reasons. You have a lot of spelling, grammar, capitalization, and punctuation mistakes in here (i.e., "exited" when it should be "excited"), which is surprising, considering how little content there is. Have someone (your mom, sister, brother, another Uncyclopedian, etc.) proofread the article, and if you are considering writing more articles, I'd recommend getting better grades in English. On formatting, you have a tacky white space at the bottom, caused by the "first-hand journalism" template. You can't even really use this template, because in the article you make no references to "this reporter" (you). Also, you have no links in the article except those caused by the templates you use. However, at least you know how to add a category. I was rather pleasantly surprised by that.
Images: 5 You only have one image, although that really can't be helped, because any more than one would be too much for the article's content. The image is (somewhat) related to the article, but it nor the caption are terribly funny. However, I wouldn't bother trying to fix this until you add some more content (meaning writing).
Miscellaneous: 2.8 Avg'd via {{pee}}: {{pee|2|1|3|5}}
Final Score: 13.8 Sorry, but I'm going to have to ICU this. Nothing personal, I'm just doin' my job.
Reviewer: Necropaxx (T) {~} 17:36, Nov 25
Personal tools