Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/University of Antarctia

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 00:13, January 2, 2009 by Mnbvcxz (talk | contribs)

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


edit University of Antarctica

AmericanBastard 03:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Concept: 3 Before I get into bashing critiquing your article, I'll start with some good points. First, you appear to know how to obey the laws of spelling and grammar, know how to wiki format, and you appear to be a good writer.

The main problem with your article's concept is that it is based on a fictional entity. (After some research, I'm fairly certain its fictional, the .com ending of its domain name, the fictional Antarctica dollars, the lack of references to it on wikipedia, and the lack of references in a google search were the give-aways). This is a satire site, and generally, you should write about things that acutally exist, or at least common internet jokes. Esoteric pop-references and obscure internet joke-sites are generally not funny. Sometimes outright fiction can be funny, but not often.

Also, at times, you go too outlandish in places, and ruin the flow of the article. For an article to flow right, the reader needs to be able mentally process it, in other words, it needs to tell a story. If you have too much absurd hyperbole, contractions, or jumping around, the reader can't follow it. The reader will then get the feeling that the article is at best a collection of independent mini-articles, and at worst, complete nonsense.
Prose and Formatting: 7 You have some spelling errors, which should be fixable with a quick spell check. Firefox has a spell checker build it. The formatting of your article is quite good, although you might consider moving some of the pics a hair. Generally, images right below header sections, and you might want to have one of the left for balance. In addition, a second external link and more categories will make you article look a little better. But on the whole, the wiki formatting is excellent.
Images: 7 Overall, the images are good, but they could be better. First of, the seal image is pixelated. The idea of the image is quite funny, but it could be improved. The second one, the map pic, isn't funny, but I'd keep it as an "image of the subject pic". As a rule, you should always have an image of the subject matter, even if that pic isn't funny. The third image, Mr. Freeze is funny, but is on the borderline between silly-funny and overkill. Also, to be technical, if he is a doctor, he would not have M.B.A. (Master of Business Administration) after his name. The 4th pic isn't really that funny, neither is its caption. The idea of sticking one's testicles into near freezing water is a bit outlandish. The last image is like the image of Mr. Freeze, but it is even a hair more toward the overkill/meme-y side. It might be funny under some circumstances, but it runs the risk of contributing to excessive outlandishness.
Humour: 3.5 For being on a fictional subject, the humor generally isn't that bad. I rarely give humor scores that are higher than the concept. In your more restrained sections, it would be fairly funny if your subject matter actually existed. At its more outlandish times, it comes across as almost complete nonsense. Generally, avoid time travel or stating what is going to happen in the future, that tends to come across as nonsensical and only confuses the reader. Additionally, don't mention absurd massive deaths; violence is funny, but overdoing it comes across as too bombastic. To paraphrase Stalin, "One death is hilarious, a million deaths is a statistic."
Improvability Score: 2 The complete bollocks nature of this article makes any substantial improvement very difficult. This is particularly unfortunate in your case because of the good formatting and the amount of work you put into the article. I'd advise working on another article, improving is possible, but will take alot of work for little benefit. Additionally, there is a bias against articles on obscure internet jokes. I can see how this could have seemed like a good idea when you started, but I'd suggest cutting your losses.
Final Score: 22.5 It is the subject matter, not your writing skills, the dooms this article
Reviewer: --Mnbvcxz 00:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools