Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Jaygo/Scientology

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit User:Jaygo/Scientology

User:Jaygo/Scientology First attempt from a noob! There is already a page on "Scientologist" and currently "Scientology" redirects there, however, this is not very funny, and I would propose - once completed, following review - to substitute it with this article.

With regards to the first three entries in the "See also" subsection, they do not currently direct anywhere, but I would create entries on these also.

Jaygo (talk) 14:47, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

Humour: 7 Hello, Jaygo! I am glad that you wrote your first article and I would like to help you about it! My general comments are: you said that you would replace the link to "Scientologists" with your article after it is being reviewed but you have done it already. Well, it is fine, but I think it would be cool if you insert the link to "Scientologists" in the "See also" section. You also said that the links in that section did not lead anywhere (which would not be very appropraite for the main space article, which it currently is) but I did not find any. This is just what I did not really understand.

Now, concerning the article, I have stated your main problems in the "Concept" part of the review. Here, I will look at the problems in different sections.

  • I personally found the introduction very funny and do not have any suggestions here. I think that you developed your ideas well and, after reading this, I think that you have also told what the concept of the article was, however I found out later that it is actually more complicated than that.

*I think that "History" is very long and there you often have "storytelling" which might not be very relevant to the article (for example, what Xenu did: after "History" you mention "Xenophobia" once and say that it is related to Scientology but the connection is not obvious: yes, you said that Scientologists want to free Thetans, but why is it related to Xenu?

  • "Practices" is good but is not fully developed. For example, you have a nice joke about people almost not reading books but the number 50,000 is pointless, as it could be 60,000 or 30,000 instead and the humour would not change.
  • "Persecution" returns to randomness several times (such as "beat the crap out of by the Junior High School bully") which is not very good but later on the section becomes funny and clever (although not extremely connected to Scientology).
  • In the next part, you explained that Tom Cruise could be considered the proponent of the religion, as he "threatened to throw those who claim Xenu is a mere myth in the nearest volcano". I personally do not know whether it is true in any way or just random, as I have not heard of this threat.
  • "See Also" has only one link, although you say "See something for more details" in several parts of the article. I think it would be better to move all these see alsos from the article to this section.
Concept: 8 After reading your article, I think that your concept is to make it look as if the Scientology was something completely different from what it is exactly (at least, it is so in the "History" section). This might work but I would advice you to make your article look like something objective (which all the articles in encyclopedias pretend to be), although you do not have to be objective, if you get what I mean. Try to write as if you are summing up different (and opposite) points of view but, in fact, tell the same thing as you do right now.

The problem with the current article is that, for instance, I found the introduction brilliant but after you simply state something without even trying to prove it. For example, do you have any particular reason to say that Scientologists want to free the Thetans from the MEST? If you do, than you can mention it in a funny way. If you don't, than why do you say this?

And finally, the last but not the least, sometimes in the article, you pretend that Scientology is a kind of a dangerous religion (you say that people doing it are dangerous) but sometimes you simply state that "Scientologists are people who bought at least one book" (although my quote is not exact).

Prose and formatting: 7 Here, you still need to work a bit, although it seems that your writing is very good. But I advice to proofread your work to eliminate any inequalities and mistakes (I found several errors, such as "this referred to" in the introduction, "to earth" instead of "to the Earth", points instead of commas in big numbers) and to have a steady and not very complicated sentences (they are too long, sometimes).

Other aspects that need to be worked on are:

  • Encyclopediness: although your article is almost fully such, words written in capital letters can be replaced with the words in italic or bald (HE => he or he (''he'' or '''he'''); same with "EVER!!"). And also, words such as "random guy" does not look very well in an article.
  • Formatting: for example, the last template spoils the end of the article, maybe because you do not have a gap between it and the last section, maybe because the last image is too big and too close.

These are only several examples, but it will be good if you try to avoid all these problems in all the sections of your page.

Images: 7 You have three images and, after looking at all of them, I have the impression that you chose them in a way not to make the article funnier but merely to illustrate, although I, personally, liked the first and the third one.

For example, you took the first image to show how Elrond Hubbard looked and the caption has humour. However, it does not show why the image is funny, therefore it is not very connected to the illustration. To explain it even better, your image maybe illustrates some joke from your article but this joke is a separate one from the one in the caption. You can take a closer look at the picture itself and state what is funny about it in a very serious manner?

The choice of the last images seemed to me a bit random. As you say that Scientologists are very dangerous, I can explain what is funny about your third picture, but what about the "Dancing with the stars" one? Does it have a strong connection with your text, strong enough for the reader to understand that it really is increasing its humour and not just simply standing there?

Concerning the way you built your article, the middle part lacks any illustrations whereas the last one has two. Considering the fact that the part without images is very long, it would be good to put some there.

Miscellaneous: 7.3 Your average score
Final Score: 36.3 I enjoyed reading your article and think that it had very good ideas. But, when I reviewed it, I took a closer look and worked out my scores according to what I found. Thus, they in no way mean what the reader's impression would be after reading your work but only whether you still have something that you can improve and how much. So, if you think that the grade is low, that does not mean that the article is bad. I think that the most important thing for you to concentrate on is the relevance of everything you say. And I put all the details in the review. I wish you all the best with your work and hope that it will get featured!
Reviewer: Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 17:12, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects