Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Did the Chicken Cross the Road
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
This is my first article. Comments, thoughts? --Qua 15:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I got this one! Since, ya know... But sorry I'm quite busy at the moment so the review may take a day or two. Can you cope with that? - 16:55 12 May Sir FSt. (QotF BFF NotM)
- Hey, I'm so sorry I wanted to take this one, but I've just realised: I have a whole load of exams coming up and I'm going to be bogged down with work. I've already held this longer than I probably should have, so I don't think Qua should be made to wait any more. Sorry Qua! So I'm opening this up to other people... I'd be very grateful if someone could take this review...I don't want Qua's confidence in Pee Review to be shattered! - 20:25 19 May Sir FSt. (QotF BFF NotM)
|Humour:||3||I was pretty disappointed actually. In the context of an Uncyclopedia Why? article the title was probably the funniest bit of it. Though I can see where you were coming from with the rephrasing of the same question and the philosophy angle it just didn’t have enough (for want of a better phrase) oomph to last a whole article. You spent a long time saying nothing and and then the punch-line was little better than the original joke’s. You could have had something a little more absurd like “to see that nice man in the van that doles out chicken feed.” Though that terminates the joke pretty quickly and I may be the only one that associates men in vans with paedophilia.|
|Concept:||5||This has the potential to be a really good “Why?” and be a prime example of being serious about silly things, it just needs a more original idea behind it as the punch line to your joke was essentially that the chicken was exploring. Even “gods will” would have given you more material as you could further it into why does god want the chicken to cross the road. Though that isn’t brilliant either. Maybe you could have several different groups that are (violently) arguing about why the chicken crosses the road. Like what religions do. Make up their different arguments, and explain them in a serious philosophical tone, that’ll give it a lease of life. And emphasises the seriousness of the question.|
|Prose and formatting:||4||What you wrote was written well enough, but the repetition got very boring very quickly. Though the prose should improve if you re-do the ideas. The formatting was good though it looked like a proper article and had enough links.|
|Images:||3||the images were exceptionally meh. The first one was ok, I guess, but the caption was plagued by the same boredom from the rest of the article. The second one had no chickens and one car (on a road going into LA unless I’m very mistaken) try photo shopping in loads of chickens and cars and make it look chaotic. And you can maybe use that in any theme you could expand into. What you do image wise really depends on what you decide to do with the article should you choose to re-write it (and I sincerely hope that you do)|
|Miscellaneous:||3.75||(averaged the score of the other fields)|
|Final Score:||18.75||like I said this article needs a lot of work, solely because the direction of the article was too weak. I’d like to see you take my advice in the concept section and re-work this article as I think it has potential if it’s pushed hard enough in the right direction.
If you’d like to thank/ask/insult me about anything please visit my talk page.
|Reviewer:||Have Fun! MuCal. Orian57|Chat|Chuckle|PEE List|Awarded|UnBlog| 07:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)|