Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Uncyclopedia 2 review
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
I've hopfully done alright with this - intially I think the first review came to the conclusion that this was possibly a little too critical and possibly in-joky in a bad way. I have tried to get it a little bit more fly on the wall and critical in a amusing way (I'd hate a version that kissed our own ass). It's hopfully something that could be featured despite its injoke style. I've ommited being user specific (i.e Chronarion etc) and focused on making Uncyclopedia a place that colloborativly made by many users. I hope you like this one and thanks for your time:) — Sir Sycamore (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
|Humour:||8||I'm writing this section last, so I'll try not to overlap, but in general I'm quite impressed; the article's well-thought out concept and impressive tone (see the appropriate sections) help to maintian it as a solid article, while the humour is very well chosen and really relates well to the subject. You've really managed to avoid making the self-referentialism of the article annoying, and any Uncyclopedia user able to laugh at themselves will be able to really appreciate the well-chosen humourous criticism (see below).
While perhaps not delivering out-and-out laughter, this article's humour could have been a lot worse, and it really manages to provide fair laughs without ever seeming like it made too much of an effort to be funny. Well done on this.
|Concept:||8.5||I'm impressed. I really am. This article, being what it is, is obviously going to be one of those ones where everyone has something to say about the concept and a different opinion on what it should be like and what it should't. And while it's obviously impossible to please everyone, you've done a very admirable job of carrying out the impressive task of remaining pretty middle-grounded and widely-appealing.
Firstly, ensuring that the article isn't user specific was a fantastic idea; that simple act makes it about ten times more widely appealing; user specification is funny to virtually no one but the users and those that know them and their actions well-a very small crowd indeed.
Moving on, the use of in-jokes and other traditional aspects of Uncyclopedia (being an article on Uncyclopedia, it would practically be a crime to try and avoid such things) has also been very well handled; they've been smoothly integrated into the article's main concept without becoming overbearing or dominant. The recurring use of Oscar Wilde and Sophia is appropriate, as is the more 'cameo'-like mentions of other, lesser aspects. However (and this is just personal taste, so I really don't know how valid it is), I think that, while it's obviously impossible (and unwise) to cover them all, there are quite a few prominent elements (Grues, Benson, many other things) unmentioned in the article that should be given cameo mentions in the body of the article. Cameo mentions, nothing more; aged and tired as these things may be, they've formed an integral part of Uncyclopedia for ages and should be allowed their rightful place. I know many might disagree with me here; it's just my viewpoint.
In general, I think that the concept behind the article is a good and solid one: portraying Uncyclopedia as a company run by Oscar Wilde is a good, solid and safe concept that manages to avoid both being uninteresting and being over-ambitious or overboard. And you made a good choice of approach, as the only real option was for the article to be humourously critical; anything else would have just been too much of one thing or the other. Perhaps a few things in the article could have been slightly less explicit and straightforward (the whining in the forums, the elitism of the admins, etc.), but many a time, unless a very definite and fleshed-out plan is made, things are better off being explicit-they're certainly more widely appealing that way. It's the safer route.
All in all, I really like the concept of the article; it's well-planned, decently moderate, and really does justice to the topic while also managing to be widely appealing. It's really an improvment on the former state of this article.
|Prose and formatting:||8||Prose-wise, I'm quite impressed. This article really maintains the tone of a wiki article-something sadly lacking in Uncyclopedia articles nowadays. The neutral tone is really very impressive-if it had been me, I know I'd have been tempted to throw in editorials that would have screwed the whole thing up. Well done in that regard. And the only thing I can say about formatting is that the footnotes should preferrably be put after the 'see also' section; otherwise, the article's layed out really neatly.
And as to grammar, there's not much to complain about either, but...well, call me a total fusspot, but there's a lot of commas missing, mostly the ones that should come after the word 'however'. Given that this is the Uncyclopedia article, I don't think small and fixable things like that should be left unvarnished. Oh, and then there's the little slip "...many a high school shootings". Otherwise, well done in this section.
|Images:||9||Good job here...you've done a nice job at choosing relevant images while at the same time avoiding excessivley overused ones. They're placed next to appropriate content, they're well spread out, they're easy on the eyes (no bad photoshopping etc.) and there's neither too many nor too few. I envy your talent.|
|Miscellaneous:||8.4||Averaged. Hope you don't mind?|
|Final Score:||41.9||A very well-planned article that does a great job of covering such a significant subject. It stands out with great concept, fine prose and impressive humour. Certainly an improvement on what once was, anyway. I am very impressed.
I hope this review was a satisfactory one for such an important article. If you feel it wasn't, please feel free to spam my talk page and threaten my family. No, seriously, I don't want to be obstructive in the proper analysis of an important article like this one.
|Reviewer:||BlueYonder - CONTACT|