Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Ptok-Bentoniczny/Ski jumping
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
This is article about a sport that is not well-known in England or America. It's about ski jumping. I need a guy who preferably knows jack shit about it and could check it, tell if it's funny, if he likes it even he knows nothing about ski jumping and could give some suggestions about possible improvements and additions. Please ignore spelling or some grammar as it will eventually land in proofreading service.
Link is here: User:Ptok-Bentoniczny/Ski jumping
- I think I'll review this. ~ 09:28, Feb 4, 2010
Yep, I know jack shit about ski jumping, and what are inruns and outruns? I enjoyed reading it though. The first problem I would like to point out is the structure. It comes off as unorganised, mainly because the topics are brought up in no particular order. You should group related topics together, and organise your sections like in a Wikipedia article. For instance, "I and V" and "Telemark" should be grouped under "Ski jumping techniques", and "anorexia", "BMI", and "financial situation" should be grouped under "Ski jumper welfare" or something like that. I think it is also likely that a lot of people won't know much about ski jumping either, so it is best to arrange the sections in a reader-friendly way to introduce ski jumping to the reader. This is my suggestion: Introduction > Origin > Contemporary > Rules > Techniques > Wind > Typical jump > Hills > Teams > Culture > Welfare > Gallery. Try to imagine how a book called "Ski jumping for dummies" would be organised.
Another problem is your sarcastic tone. Right at the beginning you establish it by saying "try to avoid suicide after being thrown out of the inrun of a jumping hill in the air. The one brave who is able to land farthest without dying or getting severe injury is claimed the winner", and you keep this sarcasm throughout the whole article. My problem is that at first I thought you were just being sarcastic about the ski jumpers committing suicide, until I saw the second youtube video which was my favourite part about the whole article. You see, from your text alone I couldn't tell that ski jumping was so dangerous because I just assumed that your sarcasm is for humour and exaggeration. Ski jumping sounds horrible, with impoverished athletes suffering from anorexia so they can fall off ridiculously tall cliffs - and you need to adequately convey this. You need to really emphasize the point, for instance you could give examples of some (career-ending) injuries that ski jumpers had, and make some jokes to emphasize the danger, like: Ski jumpers cannot really afford insurance, but it wouldn't matter because nobody would insure them anyway.(sorry if it's bad)
And I've never really like blunt sarcasm. In my book, the highest it will ever get you is a "7". Imagination and the techniques outlined in HTBFANJS can be used to really make your jokes shine. I'll deal with this more in concept.
Lead and Origins
Wind and BMI
Culture and Financial
|Concept:||5.5||I see that there is some bias in the article shown in phrases such as "swedish clown" and "fucking pole". I think that either the bias should be consistent, or there should be no bias, else it could be very messy. For instance, if you want bias, you can adopt the character of an Adam Małysz fan and bash all the other jumpers. Or else do in in the encyclopedic style and just have subtle bias. The main thing is to be consistent.
|Prose and formatting:||7||I know, I know, about your English, and I try to imagine it with good grammar when I read it, so I give you a "7" for effort. You seemed to have improved as you are using more a's, an's and the's. Just run it by the proofreading department. However, there are a few things you could do on your own. I've noticed that besides grammar, you also have some spelling errors. Do you use Mozilla or MS Word (with English) or any spell checking software? Mozilla underlines the wrongly spelled words in red. MS Word tries to give grammar advice too, with spelling mistakes in red and grammar in green. These are all things that you could use to check the English yourself. I also noticed that in the link of Wolfgang Loitzl it says , instead of Wolfgang Loitzl.|
|Images:||7||You have a lot of images, and that's good. My favourite one is Adam Małysz flying over the Native Americans(?), but who's Józef Chełmoński? I guess the Youtube videos count as images too and they're pretty funny. You have a lot of images here and it's probably not good to make them all funny, but the last one was the only one that stood out to me. The rest were pretty average. You should try making the small images bigger and try to come up with funnier captions.|
|Final Score:||33.1||This has been a long winded review by me. Scoring is arbitrary, and if you want anymore help you can find me on my talk page.|
|Reviewer:||~14:43, Feb 4, 2010|