Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:MacMania/Lens flare

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 20:21, September 11, 2009 by Guildensternenstein (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit User:MacMania/Lens flare

Hopefully in-depth, although I can go for middling in-depth. MacManiasig.png MacManiasig-cheerios.png MacManiasig-holmes.png MacManiasig-starwars.png MacManiasig-firefly.png MacManiasig-pixar.png MacManiasig-oregon.png MacManiasig-lesmiz.png MacManiasig-doctor.png 16px-HalLogo.png Portal16px.png UncycLensFlare16px.pngDalek16px.png 16px-ChekhovSig.png16px-JapanSig.png Sir MacMania GUN[18:21 22 Aug 2009]

Laughed out loud at the title. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 23:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a shame no one's done this yet--I'll do it in the next day or two. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 12:12, September 10, 2009 (UTC)
Humour: 5 All in all, this falls sort of flat, which is disappointing. The main problem is that there's no "humor cohesion," as it were. You discuss Lens Flare in a historical sense, in an artistic sense, and in a scientific sense, and then in an artistic sense again, which is ultimately too many angles. Without any context, each section by itself would be alright, and would probably score 6-7, but when put together they really don't work as well. I understand you had this sort of problem with Cartoon Physics, and here I would suggest doing something similar: i.e., dumping a section and then expanding on the others. I think the Physics section is loseable, partly because you did something similar--and much better--in Cartoon Physics. From there, I would expand upon the history and artistic use of Lens Flare. Are their different types of lens flare? How does lens flare impact an audience? Etc.
Concept: 6 I outlined a lot of your conceptual problems in the Humor section, largely you have similar problems in both categories. Because you go at it from several angles, there's no cohesion, and as a result your article feels a tad bit convoluted. This is a case of "less is more"--cut one section--again, I would recommend the sciencey part--and expand on the other.
Prose and formatting: 9 Spelling/grammar etc. is great, as is image placement and section length. You obviously know how to write and format and article, so I won't belabor the point.
Images: 9 The images are all fantastic. They complement the subject well (obviously), and drive home the point about lens flair without being "too much." The captions are all funny, the pictures are appropriately sized, and they fit in well with the text of the article. As I think this should undergo a moderate rewrite (see above sections), you may have to lose one and replace it with something else that's relevant if you implement my above advice, but I'm reviewing the article in its current state, not some hypothetical future article, so yeah.
Miscellaneous: 5 This is well below what your average would have been--because (I think) this should be revised a good deal, I can't bring myself to get overly enthusiastic about it. This--like your Oregon Trail article, and eventually, your Cartoon Physics and Space Odyssey efforts--will be fantastic pieces of work when finished, but right now this just isn't, at least in my eyes.
Final Score: 34 I've got nothing else to say that I didn't say before, really. Make this more cohesive, basically.
Reviewer: Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 20:21, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects