Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Newman66/Prickly pear
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
This is a good article, and was made for my Chicago trip for my sister from a week or two ago, and tried a prickly pear beverage (one of the Sioux City soft drinks) so I made this article sometime later. It's not quite finished yet, but it still needs some images, more humor, and more satire in the future. Thanks for reading! Newman66 Visit my table here! Contributions My works 16:01, October 25, 2013 (UTC)
|Humour:||6||Good job, Newman! Another article! And, looking at the revision history, I see that you've done it in a short period of time. Now, if you permit, I will go directly to your humour.
So, the article starts with quotes. This is fine but Spike once told me that "quotes should be a clever apéritif for the article" and that's the best advice I myself can give you. One witty citation is good. Two is also good, but I have not seen many articles with two or more funny and suitable citations. In your case, the quotes may be useful for developing and introducing humour in your text, but they are rather unclear. For instance, is Spider-man somehow linked to prickly pears? If not, than why would they help him to fight his enemies? You are not promoting a fruit company, are you?
Also - remember - quotes are like lists: it is better to insert jokes in your text rather than in quotes, unless your jokes work very well only in that state.
Now, what about the text? It is short and it contains jokes. However, after reading all the paragraphs, I feel as if you did not finish developing your ideas. You yourself said above that "Prickly pear" needs more humour and satire. But this is not exact: even in the state in which your article is, it would still be very good, if you would finish all your jokes and make sure they are actually jokes. Wait, you really aren't promoting a prickle pears team or something, are you?
If prickle pears would be extremely sour and thirst-provoking, I would understand the humour. But right now I do not. In addition to this, several sentences (such as the above) repeat the same idea over and over again. This creates an impression that the writer did not have enough to say and I don't think that this was the case here, but I do think that you might need some more information to make fun of.
|Concept:||5||I understand that it is hard to write about a not very well-known topic. But in order for "Prickly pear" to be an article, it still has to have more content. When I lack ideas for my article (as long as I can remember I completely ran out of them, while writing Anna Pavlova (ballet dancer) and re-writing Googolplex) but I still managed to get content. What I do in such cases, is - mostly often - visit Wikipedia, tell the same thing they tell and then edit the text, so it is humorous and so it goes well with my concept. Although I am not sure that it is the best thing to do, it is still better than nothing. And of course it is easier to parody or make people laugh about something you know very well.
Considering your concept, after your quotations, song-lyrics and sentence-repetition, I would conclude that eating a prickle pear was a unique experience in your life and that it influenced you very much. That's great but don't forget that it should be a great deal more than this.
|Prose and formatting:||6||Your prose and formatting is fine, except for several cases, when you did not separate your song-lyrics from the rest of the article by quotation marks or anything in particular. This is actually important, because Wikipedia would never do this and I don't think other encyclopedias would; while some people may not agree to be encyclopaedic, I think it would be a nice path to follow for you.
Also, please, review your grammar, there is not much that I found, but some things are extremely easy to notice, such as the use of singular - "the prickly pear" - in the first and the second sentence and plural - "they" - in the third one. I know it is annoying to proofread yourself, but you can ask other people to do it for you.
|Images:||2||Surprisingly, when I was reading your article, I did not even notice the lack of images - probably because your text was not boring or hard to read, and you often look for pictures, when you are struggling to read the text - and that's why I will not put a zero.
Still, do insert some illustrations, but do not insert them only because they are images or because they are slightly relevant to your topic. You should use a picture only when you are sure it will complete and illustrate the text (it is images that illustrate the text, and not another way round).
|Miscellaneous:||4.8||Considering your organization, you might want to have a separate section for the song (but you have to explain why the song is notable, how it is connected to the article, who wrote it, etc., otherwise, it won't be relevant) and maybe some history? That's what people often look for.|
|Final Score:||23.8||So, guess what? Work! Concentrate on every section and on every sentence equally. Do not have "placeholders" - sentences that serve as fillers, - develop and structure your ideas. I hope I was helpful and have a nice week-end!|
|Reviewer:||Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 20:40, October 25, 2013 (UTC)|