Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Qzekrom/UnNews:Riemann hypothesis solved by 8th grade n00b, authorities still dubious
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
- I've got this. 24 hours at the most. -- 17:31, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
|Humour:||3||Right, I initially had some trepidation about reviewing this one. Having had a second look, I can't promise that you are going to find my review helpful but I'll do my best to direct you towards a better final product. The scores that you see here aren't particularly important and you shouldn't be disheartened if your scores are low, virtually nobody arrives on Uncyclopedia, writes a fantastic article and then goes on to fame, fortune and the writer of the year award. There is a certain knack to writing articles for Uncyclopedia, you have to learn what to avoid and decide on the style that best suits you. This review is intended to guide you towards that end.
The very first item that struck me regarding this article was the use of yourself as the main subject, granted you do not outright link to your userpage, but all one needs to do is hover over the link and there it is. I'll start you off by saying that this is not a direction you should take with your articles. It is unlikely to garner huge criticism as a singular aspect, but it lends the whole article a feel that you think altogether too much of yourself. Whether or not this is actually the case is irrelevant, remember that when you submit an article to Uncyclopedia it is generally for the enjoyment of anyone who visits and for the same reason that you wouldn't be particularly interested in reading an article written by me about the things I am good at, people do not want to read an article which, however you dress it up, is about you solving a mathematics conjecture. You will notice, if you take a look at some of our other articles which involve someone writing about themselves or from a perspective where the reader is invited to make a judgement about them from the manner of writing that they are almost always self-deprecating. Consider Frog or Fuck ChiefjusticeDS, both of which invite you to make a judgement about the narrator, and in both cases it is a judgement based on the fact they are stupid or insane. The reason this is normally the case is that it makes articles a lot more readable. My advice would be to drop any links or allusions to yourself out of the article, yes you wrote it, that will be recorded in the page history, there is no need to put it in the article itself.
Don't get the wrong impression from me regarding what I think of the article I like the ideas behind it and there are plenty of existing UnNews articles written with a similar concept in mind. That said I feel your news writing style could do with a couple of changes. Try to consider how a real news article is written, it relies on the reader appreciating the implications and the circumstances of its subject. A story about a riot will almost always provide information about how the riot occurred, the circumstances in which it happened and the implications it has for the future. In your article you launch straight into the implications and then into a discussion of how it was done. Now I appreciate you are not going to be able to actually write the way a proof is provided for the hypothesis, if you are I'd suggest you head out to claim the $1,000,000 for doing so. I'd suggest you cut the quote down slightly, perhaps there is a joke to be had about the explanation, consider a joke similar to Monty Python's funniest joke in the world, instead you would have the most complicated mathematics problem in the world, just an idea. The first thing you need to do is explain why this is newsworthy, I can only speak for myself but I initially did not know what the Riemann hypothesis was, perhaps this is because I am ignorant on a truly huge number of topics, but it would be worth including a brief summary of what the hypothesis is, and why it would be helpful for it to be solved. The reason you should do this is because it underpins the whole article, if I don't know what the Riemann hypothesis is how can I be impressed by someone solving it? It will also assist the jokes you make in the second half by providing them with some basis to work upon. I'd urge you to think about this. There are some useful tips in the UnNews style guide, or you can just use the structure of an actual news article to to guide you. I also think there is some decent mileage to be had from the joke about this being the reason that wikipedia blacked out for a day, but again this will come from the way you write about the proof itself. I won't overwhelm you here with ways you could change the jokes that are in the article at the moment, if you make changes and then want me to help you decide how to change everything else I'd be more than happy to respond on my talk page.
You do make several good jokes, this one in particular: "Regardless, this statement demonstrated his superior skills in raising children than that of his predecessor, who would have merely congratulated the anonymous kid scientist on not getting left behind." It demonstrates to me that you are capable of producing a subtle form of humour and I would like to see this reflected in the rest of the article a little more, there are some flashes of excellence here and you should attempt to bring them out a bit more clearly.
|Concept:||3||I have to be honest, I think the lack of accessibility in the topic is the prime cause of the problems that you have here. I have already mentioned this in the humour section. You obviously need to look at ensuring the reader understands the entire topic. I'd also suggest trying to go with a different way of the person solving it, admittedly the idea of a teenager proving the hypothesis is unusual and impressive but doesn't really strike me as the most humorous course to take. I'd suggest if you wish to go with this, that the hypothesis is proved by accident, perhaps by vandalism which blacked out wikipedia, if you wish to combine these two jokes. I would urge you not to miss the opportunity here, if you make the manner in which the proof is found humorous you will have a much easier time with the rest of the article, otherwise the only humour you get from that part of the article is through the quotation, which isn't a particularly punchy method of doing so.|
|Prose and formatting:||5||Generally your prose are absolutely fine. I won't go into depth about proofreading as you seem to be doing absolutely fine in this regard. The only issue I would highlight here is the long quote could do with being cut down slightly, shorter quotes allow the article to flow slightly better and, because of the way they are formatted, can make the page appear cluttered. You may also wish to consider making the images slightly smaller as they are currently squeezing the text into the centre of the page. These aren't particularly essential changes, just suggestions to improve the overall look of the article. You could also consider adding a bit more text to the article, as I think there is definite room for the article to be expanded a little bit.|
|Images:||5||The images are absolutely fine and the captions are good too. No real need to make any changes here, the only slight issues are formatting related.|
|Miscellaneous:||4||My overall grade of the article.|
|Final Score:||20||There is definite potential here and my real frustration with this article is that you obviously have the ability to write well but my ability to appreciate is compromised by a succession of minor errors that together, make the experience a lot more difficult to enjoy. My advice would be that you go back and take a second look at this one, the concept needs explaining and some other aspects related to it could use tweaking. It seems to me that with fairly little effort you could turn this one into something special and I urge you to make that effort. Don't be disheartened by the low score, everybody has to have early attempts and not every article you write will get all tens right from the word go. I cannot recommend HTBFANJS to you enough, it will help you avoid a lot of the pit falls that are common to newer users and will save you receiving unnecessary advice in any future reviews, it may also provide you with some ideas for improving your article. You may also wish to browse through our featured articles and see whether you can find any whose style is similar to yours, if you do then ask yourself what those articles do well and try to apply the techniques to your work. If you disagree with any of my comments or feel that I have missed the point of your article then feel free to let me know on my talk page and I'll do my best to help you. Good luck making any changes.|
|Reviewer:||--18:46, March 11, 2012 (UTC)|