Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Uncyclopedia:Imperial Colonization/project

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Uncyclopedia:Imperial Colonization/project

The article has been copied to main space as Science fiction WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 18:10, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to whomever reviews Science Fiction. Lots of fine writers worked on it under the guidance and command of Captain James T. Puppy, who got us through Warp 7 unharmed. Thanks again, Captain's Cook and Cabin Boy, Al des chains 15:12 24 5 MMX

Seeing as how I haven't done anything on the article other than participate in discussions and assemble some possible images, perhaps I could do the review. If there's a problem because of my involvement, post a note here within the time it takes light in a vaccuum to travel 2.59020684 × 1013 meters / 2. If there's no objection, I'll have the review done in the time it would light in a vaccuum to travel an additional 2.59020684 × 1013 meters. (That means if there's no objection from IC within 12 hours, I'll review this within 24 hours after that 12 hour period). WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 19:33, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
Why? is one of the best reviewers. In the top dozen at least. Thanks for taking it. Al des chains 00:21 25 5 MMX
And this has absolutely nothing to do with him becoming a Platinum pisser. (On a slightly more serious note, HELPME has also offered to do an independent review, so we will hopefully have two for the price of one!)                               Puppy's talk page00:40, June 5, 2009 Tuesday, 04:31, May 25 2010 UTC
Chiefster said I have to do over 50 Pee Reviews, so this one will leave me one short. >:-( Expect a review in the time it would take a Star Fleet starship to travel from Sol to Proxima Centauri if traveling at an astonishing Warp 13.5. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 16:33, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
Introduction to your reviewer

Somehow, I think most of you know me. But I will briefly mention my background in SF. This is my 50th official Pee Review, and about a fourth of my reviews were SF or SF related. I was at Star Trek's 25th anniversary; started an informal club based on The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and wrote for the H2G2 wiki before Wikipedia even existed; used to wake up on Saturday mornings to the music of Doctor Who on the tele; ran SF role-playing games at several conventions; corresponded with Isaac Asimov; was given a paperback book as a present by Ray Bradbury, etc. I think you get the idea.

I also want to say that I haven't read any of the IC discussion for a few days and am trying as much as possible to ignore anything I do remember. I want to approach this article as if it just happened to be in the Pee Review queue and I happened to be the one who came along and reviewed it. That's not entirely possible, of course, but I'll do the best I can.

Concept: 8 The concept seems to be to cover the highlights of the Science Fiction genre, which I think is a good choice.
Prose and Formatting: 5.5 I put Humour comments in with P & F to avoid repeating myself but do score them separately.

Your intro

I like "realities which are most realistic than reality itself." To me, though, the first paragraph goes on too long. I'd recommend moving the parts beginning with "because it is extremely rational...." somewhere else in the article, and also shortening this. I think it goes on too much for the beginning.
"Sci-Fi uses scientifically derived scenarios, such as...." I really like the four types of SF. I especially like the Pop-Tarts joke, and also how it reincorporates "alien husbands" from the attractive aliens in a previous section. This part I find well done. At this point, I would anticipate a very good article.
I would like a brief nod to Hugo Gernsback, who invented the term "scientifiction" and was essentially the person who got the genre recognized as a genre. You could probably make a short joke about "scientifiction" becoming "science fiction."

Definition

"Science fiction is what science fiction editors publish (period)”--needs a period. Also I love the quote--I don't know that Campbell really said it, but it's about as true a statement as anyone could make up. The rest of this section I though was so-so.

The history of science fiction

I would cut the first sentence--I didn't find Plato and the wax stars funny. Actually, in spite of the fact I'm the one who suggested Icarus (oops, I wasn't supposed to bring in my IC stuff), I didn't find any of this paragraph funny. It doesn't fit the semi-encyclopedic but tongue-in-cheek-with-a-gotcha-punch line tone of what came before.
Actually, I don't think the second paragraph (begins with "Throughout the centuries"); or the third (this one about Jules Verne I really dislike); or the fourth (the Well(e)s boys) work; the police box paragraph I found mildly amusing. One problem with most of this is it requires specialized knowledge on the part of the reader. But again, I'd suggest completely rewriting this whole section from scratch, or cutting it out altogether. If you do use the names of Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, Kilgore Trout, and Arthur C. Clarke, I'd put Kilgore Trout, as the punch line, at the end (although of course it won't be a punch line to anyone who doesn't know that's the only fictional character. Personally, if I were to choose one fictional SF character, I would have chosen Lazarus Long, but as you already have Heinlein, Trout is probably a good choice).

Isaac Asimov, the Nerd

I know the three laws of robotics as well as anyone--in fact I can recite them by heart, but I still don't find the "zeroth law" amusing, so I'd cut it. Actually, I'd cut or completely rewrite this entire section--I didn't find any of it funny or fun to read (although I found the title mildly amusing).

Robert Heinlein, the Dean

I found this section slightly better than Isaac Asimov, but still disappointing. Sorry but I don't have any suggestions other than major rewriting or starting from scratch.

Ray Bradbury

Sorry, but again I would like to see this rewritten from scratch.

Kilgore Trout, the Bard

Venus on the Half-Shell--here I'm ignorant, as I never read it. I know it's supposedly written by Vonnegut's character but was actually written by Philip José Farmer, but quite honestly the only reason I know Farmer wrote it was because I looked it up. In my ignorance, I didn't find this section humorous.

Arthur C. Clarke, the Visionary

Yes, I get the satellite communication bit which I found mildly amusing (someone who didn't already know Clarke came up with the concept but didn't take it seriously wouldn't get it at all). But what is Waxmen of Jupiter? And even though I know Clarke pretty well, I had no idea what "magic exists" was about when I first read it (I know the actual quote very well--it's one of my favorite quotes of all time) or "all possible things are impossible." These are very inside-jokey, and as an insider I still didn't get them. I'd redo this section too.
In addition to the above comments, the tone of voice in these sections on the authors sounds completely different than what came before. I think this needs to be rewritten for consistency; otherwise this looks random.

Sub genres of science fiction

"Hard Science Fiction (I'd lower case, or at least capitalize throughout). I found the first paragraph mildly amusing, but think it could be shortened. I also wonder why you chose A Fall of Moondust as the supposedly first SF novel--that seems random. "...first 200 pages explaining the respiratory system of every being on Earth...."--this seems to me to be pushing a joke too far.
"See? Clarke couldn't help but bore us and drive us to drink. Heinlein couldn't write...."--again, there's a problem with tone--this doesn't fit the beginning parts of the article. Also I didn't find this paragraph or the one following funny--I'd suggest a complete rewrite. Also I don't get the joke about "The Game" or how that fits here.

Ringworld

I found the first paragraph mildly amusing; however, to someone who's not very familiar with Ringworld, the beginning references will likely make no sense.
"...copies of A Fall of Moondust being place at significant points, and the sheer weight of the the tomes was enough to keep the world in balance."--yes, this works. It reincorporates the references to AFoM being extremely heavy (although I still don't see why you chose AFoM). Also technically Ring World shouldn't be a subheading of Hard SF as there's no point of having only one subheading, but I'll let that slide. Still, I think it would be better if you had two very short ones.

Soft SF

"The most famous man to write in this sub-genre is Philip K. Dick, mainly because people like to make fun of his name."--I found this very sophomoric, and not funny. Actually, I didn't find any part of this plushy soft paragraph to be amusing.
"Soft Science Fiction draws much criticism from Hard Science Fiction readers/writers on account that it contains a plot and is readable."--I rather liked this.
"The differences between these two groups...."--this set up for the reader to learn the differences, but it doesn't say what they are. This only talks about Hard SF fans (and I didn't find it humorous).

Bradbury's Influence on Soft Sci-Fi

Didn't find this section funny except for "which had been printing faster than Deutsch Marks during the Weimar Republic"--I'd recommend keeping that and cutting or completely rewriting the rest.
"The Sci-Fi Heavyweight fight of the 20th Century"--sorry, but somebody please knock this section out.

Brave New World

"Brave New World was a Soft Science Fiction book that supposedly takes place in 2011, in which the two main characters Ridley Scott and Leonardo DiCaprio ingest large amounts of Soma and have a shared hallucination."--sorry, but this sounds like the sort of thing written by an IP that gets reverted. I know the Scott-DiCaprio-soma references, but anyone who doesn't know the proposed movie is likely to find this random. This section is very inside jokey. I get the inside jokes (this is one of my favorite SF books and I hope they don't screw up the movie), but I don't find it funny.

Cyberpunk

"Cyberpunk sci-fi, like most things now considered passé, emerged in the early 1980s."--I like this. The definition I find mildly amusing, but don't care for the rest of the paragraph.
"Cyberpunkology"--this would be the study of cyberpunk (I guess), so doesn't fit as it's used in the article.
"high-tech and low-life" themes (quote marks needed here)"--I like this bit, but not the rest of this paragraph.
"As can be gleaned from the name, the genre usually relates to dark, oppressive societies...."--this doesn't fit what's said earlier, that cyberpunk's definition is all about sex. Again, there's a problem that one part of this article doesn't fit with another part.
"Nihilism, post-modernism, and film noir techniques are common themes, often repeated endlessly to a point of redundancy."--I rather liked the redundancy here.
"If this was a real article you'd all be dead" ~ Hiro Protagonist" --didn't find this funny.
"It was a cold musky morning in William Gibson's head..."--I rather like this. But if you'll have a quote like this for this section, I'd have quotes--that fit--for some other sections as well.

The Matrix Trilogy

Like this; tongue-in-cheek, and more-or-less accurate (I guess; I only watched the first movie. It was a little painful for me, because a long-term, overarching SF adventure I ran for a couple of years came to a climax with the characters facing something virtually identical to The Matrix--and I did my version a few years before the first movie came out).

Time Travel

This section didn't work for me, and I didn't find it funny.

Doctor Who

":abducting picking up hookers women"--I rarely find strikeouts funny in articles because they seem to say, "Hey, look at me! I'm a joke, ha ha!" I don't find them funny here. If you want to suggest that the doctor is picking up whores, I'd do it subtly.
"...and saving the world with a screwdriver."--this is technically inaccurate (most of the doctors didn't use the sonic screwdriver), but I like it anyway. "Largely believed to have started...."--I didn't find the rest of this section funny. There's so much you could do with Doctor Who.

Alternate History

"He who controls custard, controls the universe" ~ Paul Atreides"--I don't know why (maybe because I read all the Dune books), but I found this somewhat amusing, even though I should probably advise you to cut it because it's out of context.
"1. What if someone else won a war (question mark)"--What if someone threw out and rewrote this entire section? The only part I found mildly amusing was the bit about becoming your own father being far too Freudian.

Back to the Future

"Back to the Future is considered to be..."--I rather liked this paragraph, although watch the mixing of present and past tense--or play up the mixed tenses and make it part of the humour. Also "visited by and alien....."
"Due to the social mores of the time...."--I don't think this paragraph is needed.

Apocalyptic Science Fiction

"Apocalyptic science fiction (again, make it "science fiction" or "Science Fiction" throughout).
"Before 1945, all apocalyptic science fiction attributed the end of the world to an act of God, but after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki humanity realised that they could do it themselves."--this is of course inaccurate, but I rather like it.
"use of, viruses, nuclear weapons, weather manipulation and Zombies."--sorry, the Zombie joke doesn't work for me.

The Bible

My first reaction is to ask why is this here? The topic of SF is as big as space and as broad as time, so I would tend to avoid bringing something else in as a section that's not SF. If this section was really, really good, I might have changed my mind. The parts of the Bible that could be semi-SF are things like the tremendous electrical charge that built up in the golden Ark of the Covenant (gold is an excellent conductor); the flying chariot that Ezekiel saw; the giant locusts with the faces of men and a sting in their tails in Revelation (which sounds like armed helicopters)--but none of that is here. Even if this section did fit SF, I don't find this funny, and would recommend cutting all of this out.

Military S.F.

"Military science fiction...."--the first sentence I found pretty good. "...and hardcore porn..."--didn't find this funny.

Starship Troopers

I liked the first paragraph OK, but not particularly the second--and didn't like "craptastic."

Space Opera

The Space Opera sub-genre...."--please shorten this sentence; I had to read it three times before I understood it. I'm almost embarrassed to say I liked "fat women with loud voices," but I did. Maybe that's because I really do like fat women with loud voices. "The term 'Space Opera'...."--this sentence is really involved, and feels like the article is working too hard to set up a minor joke. I'd split this into two sentences.
"The sub-genre is know(n) for large, flashy battles (semicolon) main characters with strange speech patterns (semicolon) and music composed by John Williams."--yes, I like the John Williams joke.

Star Trek

I like the many, many more Star Trek links.
"Due to Mr. Spock's logic...."--this sentence is so long I don't know what it's talking about. "...male fans would dispute what actually happened until they went on enraged killing sprees"--does this have something to do with Star Trek?
"The same can't be said for William ShattnerShatner, whose career has plummeted like a Klingon war vessel."--sorry, but this old and completely inaccurate joke I don't find funny. Besides that, I don't remember seeing Klingon war vessels plummet on a regular basis, so don't think the joke works.

Star Wars, Stargate, The Last Starfighter, etc.

I think you could get a small joke out of putting the Star Wars episodes in real order; i.e. episodes four, five and...no, one, two...no, three, six....
"Take one part Edgar Rice Burroughs' Mars' princess in distress, two part's Heinlein's militaristic nightmare..."--here's yet another tone of voice and it feels like the reader has moved into a different article. Again, the sentences are so long I kept getting lost. I'd make them shorter, and follow long sentences with short ones for some variety. Also I didn't find this funny.

The dangers of science fiction

The beginning of this I think is OK, but didn't find it funny.
"Though most accidents that occur due to science fiction are harmless (such as running headfirst into closed doors)"--this I found relatively funny.
"The bad new always comes at the end of the party, or in this case, both this article and human history. We are all going to die in 2012..."--again, the style here doesn't seem to fit what's come before. And I find this paragraph confusing and not funny.
"...nanotechnology came...."--this sounds like it came out of nowhere. I didn't even see nanotechnology in this section until now--in fact there's no reference to it before this except in the very beginning--but this sounds like this is what the article has been talking about. Actually, this ending sounds tacked on (including the "machine gunk" bit), and I didn't find it funny.

See also

I think the links are fine, but I'd add more.

References

I didn't find any of these funny. Also why I might agree that Metropolis is pre-cyberpunk, why change the name to Super-Metropolis? I imagine this is an attempt at a Superman joke, but to me it didn't work.

Remember that in collaboration, getting an article to sound like it was written by one person is critical--unless it's a rare exception where different people actually address the reader within the article. Collaborations require someone to go through and make all the pieces fit together.

Humo(u)r: 4 Quite honestly, I rather think I'm being a little generous with this score. Some of the parts I found very funny, but the great majority of the article I didn't, as explained above.
Images: 6 This is a mixed score: 7 for images, 5 for captions. I'll deal with each image separately.

Photonic orgasm--rather like the image and caption.

The Beyond--SciFi Tribute--nice tribute; not funny. Unless the intent is to take the reader away from the article for six minutes and 52 seconds, I'd cut this out--or at list stick it at the end after the article's over. But really, I'd cut it.

Icarus--rather like the photo and caption--except that it references the ending of the article which the rest of the article doesn't. I'd add a hint of the ending to go with this caption--or rewrite the caption to fit this section of the article.

Asimov--nice picture, but I found the caption mediocre. Did you see the one of him wearing the Jupiter Two as a hat?

Ringword--liked the image (yes, I'm a huge Tolkien fan too); found the caption to be so-so.

The Wizard--sorry, I'm rather biased against that wizard image because it reminds me of how a non-article was named one of the best three articles of the month which pissed several people here off. Keep in mind that using this image will likely piss them off at this article. If I ignore the bias, I find the image OK, but don't like the caption.

The Matrix--I found the image OK, didn't care for the caption.

The Doctor and Amy--because of my limited TV right now, I haven't seen this episode, damnit. The idea of the caption might work if the text that mentions the doctor's (until recently non-existent) sexuality.

The car--nice image, but don't care for the caption. Doc Brown's actual quote I found much funnier--don't see why the article couldn't use it. "The way I see it, if you're gonna build a time machine into a car, why not do it with some style?" In my opinion, one of the best non-serious quotes in a SF movie.

Apocalypse--nice image, but if there's a joke in the caption I'm not getting it.

Flip flops--I'd stamp out the caption and the image.

Shatner--often I find moving images in an article to be distracting, unless they work really, really well. This one to me doesn't work really, really well--and I don't find the caption humorous.

Data--unfortunately, I've seen this too many times in other articles to find it terribly amusing here. Still, I rather like it and the caption.

Miscellaneous: 5 Overall impression of the article.
Final Score: 28.5 When I read the beginning of this, I anticipated that this article was going to be quite good--I'm talking feature level. But sadly, the great majority of the article didn't live up to what the beginning promised. Quite honestly, I think this article needs a complete rewrite. The writing styles in different sections don't fit with the style in other sections, and I found very little humour. Some parts as I described I thought were very good, but unfortunately I found them few and far between.
Reviewer: WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 06:21, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
Humour: 6.25 WARNING: Do not read this review until you are prepared and open to criticism. Some of this is harsh and blunt, even though this isn't all bad. Thanks. Also, if I completely missed the point, feel free to completely disregard my opinion and accept my apologies.

OK, so I'm going to use this for all of my advice that doesn't fall into another section.

  • Lede: See P+F. I can't rightly give advice for what I don't understand. You may be trying to use the "big words" satire, which could work, but I have to be able to understand it. The next part...you know my feelings on list format. Bulleting wasn't really necessary. You could easily say "A Sci-Fi writer uses certain scenarios, such as the <insert thing about time and such>.
  • <new paragraph> They may also use <insert text>.
  • <new paragraph> Or, they could use <text>.
  • <new paragraph> Finally, they use <text>."

That's still like a list, but it's not exactly the same as a list. That would express everything in a better way and won't annoy dumb people like me.

  • Definition - Could use some lengthening. I kind of dislike the quote; it feels like a "captain obvious" type thing. To be blunt, this section really isn't funny. I felt some potential was missed. A good way to satirize this would be use an angle that was closer to that of your lede; that Sci-Fi uses contrived scenarios. I felt that was a good idea, but you sort of abandoned it. Also, I didn't understand the last sentence. See lede suggestions.
  • The history of science fiction: What. The beginning was kind of random. I disliked the bits about candles, wax, etc. because it didn't really mean anything to me. I would have liked it better if you played him off as crazy, but just got rid of the candles and the wax and all of that. The stuff about the sun being an arch-villain? Good. You still didn't need the wax. You could have just said that Icarus flew. The stuff about how Jules is a rude Frenchie? Meh. It didn't really work, honestly. “Pfft” breaks the fourth wall and is unnecessary, in all honestly. The story isn't really funny. You could make it funny, but at the moment, it just seems weird and unnecessary. I would give an example of what I would do, but I honestly can't. You really do have to work hard to make sure you don't just sound strange.
  • Isaac Asimov, the Nerd: Not a fan of this section. First, when satirizing authors about what they write by saying they only write a certain thing, you have to make sure they only write that thing. After a quick Wikipedia search, I discover he wrote a lot about robots, but it wasn't all about robots. Since it wasn't, you miss potentially good satire targets and sound kind of strange by saying that. The dementia thing? Weird. Unless I'm an idiot and missed something, which I probably did, he didn't have dementia, and that's baseless. Baseless is bad, as it seems to be random satire. Finally, the thing about Stephen King and Nora is namedroppy. I'd cut it. I also think you just replace "zeroth" with "first", as I really don't like it when people make up numbers and times.
  • Robert Heinlein, the Dean: The thing about orgies that actually is based off of him is much better. I'd replace totalitarian with something about him being a hippy or some such; that's much more supported. I didn't find anything about a drug past, but it doesn't matter, as that isn't really funny or important. The next sentence would have been better without the part about space insects, as I didn't see anything about that anywhere, but I'm really too lazy to look hard for it. Otherwise, that's an OK sentence. I really liked the next two sentences, but again with the wax? I didn't like that. This would be better without the third sentence.
  • Ray Bradbury, the Geek: Sticks and stones- meh. Kind of pointless, not really all that funny. Not bad, but not good either. Horror fiction- this isn't about horror fiction. Try to remember that you are not writing biographies of the writers- you are writing about their parts in science fiction. Other then that, this is better. I also don't really see the point of the box. It isn't based off much. If he was an established weakling, it would be funny, but at the moment, it doesn't seem to make too much sense. Even though this is still about Sci Fi, and I don't see how that's about Sci Fi.
  • Kilgore Trout, the Bard: Kilgore Trout isn't even the real person. =/ I really don't like this section. First, what's the point of the "People Who Like To Fuck Naked" link, or calling the woman a whore? I don't mind sexuality jokes, but these don't seem to have a point. Second, the "100's" number seems to come out of nowhere. Pointless numbers do not a funny article make. Third, where does the "Sci-Fi Parade for peace" come from? The end is better because it's based off of him, but I dislike saying that he invented "quagmire", because he didn't. If he did, that would have been great.
  • Arthur C. Clarke, the Visionary: I like this, except for the end. Those laws aren't really what he said, and don't really get a laugh. I felt you could have taken a better angle, such as "1. It is possible for elderly scientists to be impossibly wrong if they say something is impossible, whether or not it is possible for them to have speak about impossibilities and how possible or impossible they are." That's awful and too long-winded, but it makes the point; an angle would be nice.
  • Sub genres of science fiction:- That introduction is kinda pointless. It doesn't have humor, and unless the reader in question has a very low IQ, they know that "sub genres of science fiction" is about Science Fiction's sub-genres.
  • Hard SF: OK first paragraph, but see P+F. "See?" Breaks the fourth wall and hurts your tone. But why is the Moondust the first one? There were many before it. Perhaps you should base this off of the actual first one. Second paragraph? Big meh. That second to last sentence says there are 4- but there are more. This number is random. I like your last joke. Frankly, I think the third paragraph should just go. It's not funny and is really small.
  • Ringworld: The first paragraph wasn't too funny. At first, it goes into "nerds sux lol" and I think "Oh God." Luckily, it goes into sarcasm. Unfortunately, this isn't all that funny. Remember that obvious sarcasm shouldn't really be used to insult somebody, usually; it messes with humor. A better example: "Instead of <insert good things here you said here>, the honorable men and women took on the important task of finding examples of problems in Ringworld." - A nice image of nerds working hard with a caption like "Nerds on the job. Note the formal attire for this important event." That would have been funny to me. I don't have a problem with the second paragraph.
  • Soft SF: Highlighting dick? Kind of stupid. I'd recommend removing "mostly because name blah blah" because it's kind of dumb, honestly. I liked the rest well enough.
  • Bradbury's Influence on Soft Sci-Fi: Something here- why? Why did they just accept his submissions? It isn't very clear. Also- why do I care about Silent Spring or Anne of Green Gables? There are too many links here anyway, so I would just cut those.
  • Brave New World: For the beginning, there is one word: Blech. That's really random, namedroppy, and unfunny. Why Leonardo? Why Soma? I hate it when people put things that they predict will happen in the future in articles, unless there's a satirical reason. I'm almost positive I'm missing something. But, you don't even give me a Wikipedia link and I don't want to search for it. Also, the government joke is kind of random, and I don't even see why it's there. This is a major low point.
  • Cyberpunk: First paragraph is good, except for the punk definition, which I have disdain for. I think that should just be removed. I really like the first sentence. The second paragraph has no jokes, sigh. I didn't really understand the first sentence of the third paragraph. It could use some rephrasing. I liked the end. The quote was kind of weird and hard to understand, but I am pretty tired, so it could be my fault. Also, that box isn't funny for one reason: it is a real article. Blatant lies aren't funny to me. However, the idea of that quote has potential- it just needs to be rephrased slightly so it isn't a blatant lie.
  • The Matrix Trilogy: Good. A high point.
  • Time Travel: Meh, I don't really how the things in the first paragraph are related. They could have chosen any two words. Why did they choose "time travel"? What was in those discussions? Etc. You kind of ignored these details. OK second paragraph, but why was it called a sham? There's no specific reason; just saying "The explanation led to" is kind of lazy, and misses chances for jokes.
  • Doctor Who: I am not a big Doctor Who person, so I can't give too much here. So, I'm moving on.
  • Alternate History: Er...not too good. I see a Russian Reversal. Bad. It's list-like. Bad. I would rewrite the whole section, as it was kind of confusing anyway. If I'm honest, I really love the custard thing, but it's a bit random at the moment. I think a good thing for you to do would be to incorporate custard into the actual article somehow (without sounding like a random, babbling buffoon... good luck with that) so it works with the article.
  • Back to the Future: You were on a good track until that last sentence. How can he be tortured if he's asleep? Also, I don't remember Heavy Metal music tormenting people having anything to do with Back to the Future, but I haven't seen it in years, so I'm not too sure. I know that's the different version, but it seems to just be pulled out of there. Good second paragraph.
  • Apocalyptic Science Fiction: The first paragraph is more factual than funny. There is a way to get an angle in this paragraph, and you tried to establish the "emo" thing, but you didn't go anywhere; you just stayed in the facts camp. I like the last joke in the second paragraph about zombies, but that was the only joke! What you could work with is to take the "It's humanity's fault. Everything is." angle. (Don't actually say that) Take apocalypse theories that aren't possibly related to humans and say that humanity did it, somehow.
  • The Bible: You can really just say "Main Article". There's no need for "Cool". I liked the first paragraph. But, after that, it seems to have nothing to do with Science Fiction. I'd recommend you remove the second paragraph and change to be satirizing the "cult-like following" - keep the "Bible is just crazy fiction" and mention the actual apocalyptic events here.
  • Military S.F.: Good, but I'm not too keen on the "hardcore porn" thing. Where does this come from? I think it means to say that soldiers are perverts, but something this subtle in an article about something completely different is sketchy at best. I'd just request you remove it.
  • Starship Troopers: Why is it racist/all of the other things you said? I didn't like the second paragraph, but there honestly isn't much advice I can give. One thing, though: did you have to say "craptastic"? Couldn't have just said "bad"?
  • Space Opera: We have hit run-on sentence. We're rich! Seriously, you could just put a period after "space battles", and then say "It inherits blah blah" As for the rest, eh. I felt Shatner was a bit weird- but that's just my opinion.
  • Star Trek: I noticed that you never really said before this that Space Opera was all about flashy battles and ignored plot- you should put that in specifically. Another run-on sentence. What do Spock's ears and Kirk's personality have to do with them establishing the cult, anyway? This also contradicts itself- it says first that it's all about flashy special effects, but then says they had a flimsy budget. How could they have flashy special effects if they had a flimsy budget? The stuff about fans isn't funny and strays too far from the topic at hand. I would destroy it. Finally, Klingon war vessels don't have a tendency to plummet, so I'm confused at where you got that. You should replace it with something correct.
  • Star Wars, Stargate, The Last Starfighter, etc.: The long sentences seem a bit pointless and unfunny. Also, please don't ever mention the Jonas Brothers again. Jokes about them just aren't funny, ever. None of the rest is really interesting and needs help. One note: You did not tell me earlier about alien women. No lying, bad person. You should put a mention of it in the earlier parts of the article.
  • The dangers of science fiction: The lack of jokes in the first paragraph hints to the reader that there is a punchline coming. There isn't. So, it is especially important to add more jokes here, as it disappoints the reader if you don't. Also, it would help you end on a high note. Waah? Where did you get nanotechnology from? It just came out of nowhere! The third paragraph hints that satire will be in the fourth one. There isn't very much. You shouldn't tease your readers! Finally, the last joke would be funny, except it comes out of nowhere. There should be a funny reason behind why that person says that- that would be a good chance for humor.
  • See also: Is a list of links, so not much advice can be given. You could use more links.
  • References: I didn't understand the first one. What is sustaining these writers and why is it sustaining them? The second one has too much hate in it; slow your ranting a bit, boy. Also, the last sentence in that note is weird and doesn't make sense. The third one gets a "wut." The joke doesn't seem to have a reason behind it- why is Metropolis super, and why is it worth mentioning? That last cite note makes no sense at all to me. I don't even know what or who it's talking about- is it referring to that sentence, the whole section, or some other section? There must be something I'm missing.
  • Note: A huge problem is that I had to research to find some of this funny. To a casual reader, this wouldn't be very good. Simply linking to their Wikipedia article is enough- people are too lazy to read all of that.
  • Note 2: This is a mix of great humor and stuff I really don't like. Remember that if you have a certain angle, you will have more funny.
Concept: 6 Well, there are quite a few concepts. I feel there are a few too many, even for such a long article. I wish you had kept a certain angle. That is to say that you would have a certain joke slant that lasts through every different satire point- a constant opinion, dialect, mindset, etc. I give most of my advice for this in humor.
Prose and formatting: 6.5 There are quite a few mistakes formatting and prose issues:
  • Formatting: The beginning is messed up, but I think that'll be fixed when you move it out of the Colonization space. Some of these paragraphs, like the first paragraph in the history of science fiction section, are really long. You know how to fix this- find paragraphs that appear as more than 5 or so lines (Not in the editing screen- when reading the article from the normal one). Also, I felt a bunch of your images and templates were crammed together at certain parts of the article, and a lot of it felt like a wall of text. So, you need to figure out a way to move images around to locations where they aren't all in the same place. Also, that Ringworld picture was too big to be on the left. I'd like you to move it to the right. Finally, you know what I link about your random link bolding. You should get rid of those.
  • Prose
  • Lede: /me bangs my head on desk that first paragraph is so confusing. It has huge run-on sentences. It needs periods, commas, and the like. Other than that, I gave most of my advice for prose in humor. Now, gramor, and speeling:
  • Lede: At the end of the first bullet, there should be a "can be used" at the end f that last sentence.
  • Definition: No official grammar mistakes, but I think you should consider using more commas in here.
  • The history of science fiction
  • There should be a comma after the first "far" and the first "long".
  • You capitalised "Science" needlessly.
  • I'm not totally sure about this one, but I think there should be an apostrophe in "one's"
  • "Icarus a dull ...." You need a comma after Icarus.
  • "e-bay" should be "E-Bay"
  • "bejesus" - I am of the opinion that this should be capitalised.
  • Isaac Asimov, the Nerd:"wax robots, the various..." There should be an "and" before the the.
  • Robert Heinlein, the Dean:
  • "Books about his favorites..." Favorite.
  • "Some of them were even made into movies [2], depicting ..." You put a space between the movies and the comma.
  • "society into Hippie Heaven)-- Get rid of the random parenthese.
  • Ray Bradbury, the Geek: No mistakes.
  • Kilgore Trout, the Bard:
  • ", nicknamed "The Bard" by his jealous colleague Robert Heinlein," That would have been better expressed in parentheses.
  • Arthur C. Clarke, the Visionary:
  • "magic exists." The period goes after the quotation marks.
  • ", and brought the Sci-fi literature on wax into the 21st Century with his Waxmen of Jupiter trilogy, personified the prophetic branch of science fiction" - the "and" would sound better before "personified".
  • 'Sub genres of science fiction/Hard SF
  • "fancy-Dan" "Dan" should be capitalized.
  • "thru" - That's just shameful. THROUGH! THROUGH!!!
  • "Bradbury, don't even go there." - Fragment. You should put "As for" before Bradbury.
  • Ringworld:
  • "sheer weight of the the" Extra the.
  • "Luckily these people" A comma after luckily would be awesome.
  • Soft SF:*Why did capitalise Science Fiction here but nowhere else?
  • Bradbury's Influence on Soft Sci-Fi- No mistakes.
  • Brave New World:
  • "Alphabet as they" - A comma would be cool after "Alphabet"
  • You capitalised "Soma" once but not another time.
  • "that each creates" Would be better as "that are each created"
  • Cyberpunk:
  • "Morse" should be capitalised.
  • "genre usually relates to dark, oppressive societies, and often include" includes.
  • "Rastafari" should be "Rastafarian"
  • The Matrix Trilogy: -
  • "groudbreaking" should be "groundbreaking"
  • "nailbiter" is improper. "Nail-biter" works.
  • Time Travel: - You don't need to capitalise time travel.
  • Doctor Who: - "the airing of each" the airings.
  • Alternate History:
  • "What if someone else won a war." That is a question, and needs a ?
  • "patriotic Frenchman Louis Geoffroy," Patriotic Frenchman named Louis Geoffroy.
  • Multiple comma errors that I don't care to fix, I'm too lazy and tired.
  • Back to the Future: "social mores" - Don't you mean "social norms"?
  • Apocalyptic Science Fiction - You capitalised "zombies" needlessly.
  • The Bible:"and his his mom" extra "his"
  • Military S.F: - No real mistakes, but capitalising "aliens" seemed pointless.
  • Starship Troopers: "It centers around" "Around" should be "On".
  • Capitalise "Fascistic"
  • Space Opera: *

"genre is know" - Genre is known.

  • "William Shatter" - I believe you mean "William Shattner"
  • Star Trek: - "due to it's focus" "it's" should be "its"
  • Star Wars, Stargate, The Last Starfighter, etc.: - "cashflow" - "Cash flow" is two words.
  • The dangers of science fiction:
  • "disasterous" should be "disastrous"
  • "day," Semicolon, not comma.
  • "unsrupulous" should be "unscrupulous"
  • "waxlike" Should have a dash between "wax" and "like".

So, yeah. A lot of spelling and grammar problems, but considering the article's size, it's understandable.

Images: 7 First image: Love it. Wouldn't change a thing.
  • Second image: The Icarus one is fine.
  • Video tribute: Meh, interesting, but not really funny. Something unfunny and long could drive the reader away in the beginning. I would put at the end.
  • Asimov image: Good image, OK caption. It's slightly inconsistent because the whole paragraph isn't all about him being crazy, so I think you can change this to be more fitting. Even just changing "loony" to "robot fanatic" would work better. I like the sideburn thing.
  • Comment: After this, there are no images for a long while. See P+F.
  • Ringworld: Fine, but see formatting advice.
  • Wizard: In-jokes here? Meh. Considering the idea behind the article, the wizard is kind of pointless and unfunny. Seriously consider getting rid of this, as it isn't really funny, and will annoy people.
  • Comment: Again, huge space without images.
  • Matrix: Fine.
  • Kissing: I don't know about Doctor Who, so yeah. But I can say this: It's inconsistent. Except for a very brief sentence, there's no mention of Doctor Who being sexually harassed or him being sexual himself in the article. So, you should probably include that in the article rather than get rid of this image.
  • Car: OK I suppose. Could have been funnier, but it was at least a little bit funny.
  • Apocalypse image: Cool image. The caption appears jokeless. There are plenty of things you could work into here- you talked about the Bible, you could satirize that, or you could satirize how that explosion was created, like you did at the end of the paragraph.
  • Flip-flop: Where did this come from? There's only a tiny mention of bugs in this section, so why is there a whole image based off of it? To make matters worse, it was only slightly funny. If you could work some more humor into the caption and have the article mention bugs and their eradication more, this will be acceptable.
  • Shatner image: Meh, not all that funny. It's bold, italic, and it moves. Ergo, it's really distracting, and has to be really funny. Number one, the fake quote is way longer then what he could have said in that short mouth movement. Number two, the quote you made up could be funnier. You could satirize the movie a bit more when doing this, instead of just that small part.
  • Last one: Good, except for one thing: why did you call him a robot? I would just say "guy" or "man", because "robot" seems random.
Miscellaneous: 6.5 Overall feeling
Final Score: 32.25 This isn't all that bad. It just needs some help. Problems include:
  • Grammar and spelling mistakes
  • Finding an (preferably tongue-in-cheek) angle
  • Really, really specific problems that I can't generalize

Some parts of this are feature quality and some aren't even close. So, at a 32.25, this means that the article is more or less average. Good luck with what you're doing just remember not to mess with the good parts.

Reviewer: --Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Saturday, 04:27, May 29 2010 UTC
Personal tools
projects