Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/White Blood Cell
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Tedmund 00:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
|Humour:||4.5||There’s probably a good idea here, it's been not all that well executed I'm afraid. There seems to have been too great a focus on images here and it really hampers the article.
Now as for the rest, I'm kind of compelled to suggest a complete rewrite, it seems too random to me and short, the jokes about Nazi's and sexual orientation have there place don't get me wrong, its just that’s kind of it here. I think maybe going back to the drawing board would help here, maybe really hammer down the idea of characterization and back story into something imaginative and actually funny. Stuff about crap and sore asses just is too infantile for the site in my book - you kind of smile a little rather than really become engrossed with the article. There is lots of uses of Bold text - this only seems to weaken the punch lines as they just aren't really funny.
The formatting throughout is awful, spaces have been created by inappropriate image sizing and probably just too many images. For me, I always aim for an article that at a glance looks encyclopedic (particularly in mainspace i.e. not an Unbook etc) so that at a glance it looks like someone clicked on Wikipedia and reads on to find the "true story"; basically I don't want to see articles that look blatantly like they're trying to be funny but one where readers read on and there are amused as they read on. On an unrelated tangent there’s an album by the White Stripes called White Blood cells - you could maybe have some theme of that - they use a lot of colours and allegory in their albums so you could maybe have that in your article.
As it stands, to reiterate, I would rewrite bulk of the prose sections - but still keep the character of the white blood cell.
|Concept:||6||Difficult for me to really say - I think the focus needs to be on writing, I think that this can work, it's just going to need some imagination to really get it off the ground -|
|Prose and formatting:||4||Not good, too casual, too newspeak, too unfunny - the writing should be the focus, not the images and that’s where the really laughs are going to come from. If you have a look at Best Of you can see the sort of thing other people do which is generally whets looked for in the best articles. Also HTBFANJS - some jokes just aren't going to work, especially if there forming the bulk of the article.|
|Images:||6.5||Badly formatted, too big. Around 250px should be the right size aligned right usually. I like the un- animated ones; they're pretty good and should stay. I’m not so sure about the one at the top and the one at the bottom - they look a little amateurish and I tend not to go for animations – as they never look quite right.|
|Miscellaneous:||5||Not too good, I would turn your focus on writing the article and sticking with it. I think they idea could work very well, It’s a question of avoid too many in-jokes and following your own idea to its conclusion.|
|Final Score:||26||I am sorry that this article does not work as well as it could, should you need anything, just leave a note on my talkpage:)|
|Reviewer:||— Sir Sycamore (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)|