Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:MacMania/Rosetta Stone
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
- Consider this a warning, next booking that does not have a review attached within 24 hours will result in a 2 day ban. --
21:29, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
- I also did leave clear instructions about when the time is by which it is free for someone else to review, since there's a limit to how long it can be dibsed for, and I did technically specify the date (October 14th)... Sadly, real life interfered. As is, I do not consider a warning to be appropriate, as I was aware that I may end up not having time to review it, and clearly stated so well in advance. -- DameViktoria 21:10, 29 Nov
Oh, very well. I'll review this. Soonish. -- 20101127 - 21:39 (UTC)
|Concept:||7||You wondered if it works? I think it works. Bits of it are a mite odd, but overall, the ideas and presentation here are just grand, and combining the two things of the same name, a trick that I am starting to get rather used to seeing around here, does work in this case. The things, after all, are similar, very similar - this is why the one was named after that other, so how far a stretch is it to make the original into essentially a pre-technological version of the current? Enough to be amusing, methinks.
A problem for a technical person like me is... it's not enough. How could such a thing even have existed? I want to know how it worked, and how it works. How does it match up the phrases and symbols and words? Was there magic involved? Which languages does it even use, the hieratic, demotic, etc? But for that matter, why do you go into such detail about these at all? If the hieratic gave way to the demotic, why would they both be in use? Maybe that's a typical thing with languages, or even just the way you worded it, but it confuses me a mite and I'm not even sure how all the information about these helps, for that matter.
Anyways, I was saying, or getting to saying, the instruction is also a little strange. The how bothers me - as it is, it seems like it could be anything from magic to really tiny print, and from the prototype images, it could well be a combination of the two. While vagueness isn't really an issue, despite how much I might like technical stuff, you do hint at it a few places... hence my confusion. How in the blazes would it match ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΣ to the cartouche?
The ending, too, has me at a bit of a loss - of course there would be criticism of such an innovative piece of... whatever this was a piece of. And of course it would be important; this is a product entry, and all. How was it actually received, though? It makes no mention of what those for whom it was originally intended made of it; no records at all were found? How did the 13-year-old pharaoh respond to this potential slight, or was his response why it did or didn't reach whatever production levels, if that makes any sense? The juxtaposition of typical modern tourists or businessfolks using it and venturing to ancient Egypt is great, however. It just not answer all that I might have expected.
And the discovery at the beginning and thievery at the end, I'm assuming these are words for the same thing? This may or may not be something with which to be consistent, but the note at the end felt a mite out of place, not so much that it oughn't be there, but that there should be further reference to how it was procured earlier as well, or something.
And the response is just lost on me completely. I just don't understand - 'Steady on'? What? The article to which it links doesn't help in the slightest... in fact, I think it made me lose whatever comprehension I had before clicking the link. Final links in articles are powerful things, after all...
|Humour:||9||Eh, 'sides the lovely idea, the humour is pretty decent throughout this, not that I'd expect anything less of you... when are you getting back here, anyhow? Er, anyhow... hmm. The introduction really isn't that strong, actually. I completely forgot the points that it made later. Though it does set the scene fairly well, it needs funnies. Something. More about the court, perhaps, since that comes up again later, and perhaps something about just how it was procured by these archaeologists... and how important it has been since, say for learning hieroglyphs at the last minute, or some other nonsense. Need to ask something about [insert phrase from later on in the article here] and it... well, I'm sure you can come up with something.
|Prose and formatting:||7||Lovely. Really. Good tone, didn't notice any grammatical or spelling issues, the overall organisation works, and... yeah. Look to the overall fluency, of sections and ideas, though - some of concepts would probably do better with more consistent reference throughout the thing.
Overall, though, really quite lovely.
|Images:||8||It's funny, but the worst image here is probably that of the actual Rosetta stone. The one you put together and the box-set Meep assembled are just perfect for the piece... then again, the way you present all three works just fine, anyway. Might want to explain why the large rock one is so large and rocky and dark - easiest to produce that way, or something, unlike the nicer prototypes?|
|Miscellaneous:||8||That lady has a bird on her head... oh, wait, that's an image comment. Miscellaneous comment... eh, number. Gut feeling? That kind of thing.|
|Final Score:||39||So, I'd like to say that this is a lovely piece, that given some go over and clean up and elaboration in a couple of places, or perhaps not, but something, will only go on to become lovelier. Hopefully this shall help, and whatnot. If I made less sense to you as some of the sections in the article made to me, or something, though... well, you know where to find me.
Now you just need to get your arse back here and finish it. I'll be waiting. For as long as it takes.
|Reviewer:||-- 20101128 - 02:25 (UTC)|