Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Take a wikibreak

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 17:42, April 20, 2008 by Cajek (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Why?:Take a wikibreak

I know this isn't going to be FA anytime soon, as I really don't think this or I can ever be good enough. However, I could use some advice to take this from a below-average article to a good one. I would also like to request that only a member of PEEING reviews this, as it could really use a good critique. —– Sir Hv » | Talk | Contribs | KUN | UotM | RotM | VFH | Kidney | 19:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why?:Take a wikibreak
is being reviewed by
CajekHi!
Your Source for Fine Scented Pee
And Whatever Else Comes Out Of Him
Humour: 5.7 yep. I guess I took a wikibreak recently, so who could be more qualified?? I ASK YOU, WHO?!??
  • Intro {6}: Ah, so that's what "wikibreak" means. I was wondering if you were asking people to break Uncyclopedia, which would have been bad, and make me sad and mad. Okay, as it is, it's not funny, only well-written (as I guessed you would be). Yeah, it's really good writing, but it's just stating facts to us. I don't know what I would do here, lemme see... Well, it's the introduction, it's not important for this article. My reasoning is that if you started explaining "why take a wikibreak" in the introduction, that might defeat the purpose of the rest of the article.
  • 1.1 Stress {8}: GOOD LINES: (1) "This is despite the slight fact that Uncyc doesn't actually weigh anything," (2) "just print every article out, stick them on your shoulders, and you'll see what it feels like." (3) "seeing certain vandalism over and over until they just snap." There was more funny here than I thought this article would dish out. I think you've got the idea: This article isn't going to have interplay with different characters or a continuum of storyline, it has to be funny via one-liners. So far, so okay, Heerenveen.
  • 1.2 Disorder {5}: GOOD LINE: (1) "raft after raft after raft[2] of vandals" & "Yup, the vandals have rivers that flow into Uncyc now. Look, there's one over there!". Fairly short section, and you really didn't explore "disorder" very much. I would go in to, like, the way IPs and new users like to add templates to everything and vomit pictures everywhere. Go in to IPs, vandals, and noobs WAY more than you have (that's why a 5, because I felt you left lots out, not because it was bad).
  • 1.3 Arguments {5}: I wasn't feeling this one. I don't know why, but I'm of the opinion that talking ABOUT arguments in an article isn't nearly as interesting as having one with the reader.
  • 2 Benefits {5}: GOOD LINES: (1) "P3NIS BY T3H 13371N4T0R" on your freshly unprotected userpage" (2) "Unprotected userpages are like unprotected sex - an accident waiting to happen." Well, I had a thought about the fundamental organization of this page (WIKIBREAK TIME): Instead of writing just about the bad stuff in the REASONS sections (stress, disorder, arguments), you should include all the benefits in there as well, and get rid of this section. Keep the good lines and such, but move them up into the other parts of this article. In other, more plain, words: explain both the good and bad in the same sections, so that the article is more compact, and so is the funny.
  • 3 Drawbacks {4}: Hey, no fair repeating everything in the benefits section! Merge DRAWBACKS with BENEFITS, and then merge with the rest of the article and delete BENEFITS.
  • 4 On your return... {7}: GOOD LINES: (1) "Well, your mind. Isn't that your only good thing anyway?" (2) "...1000-edit-a-month tank that shoots massive rockets..." (3) "just as your relatives come and go as they have finished helping you and your life." Ah, yes, VFH (Personal note that you shouldn't bother to read: The pressure of having to have VFH articles drove me away from Uncyc for 3 months, until I remembered that it's a challenge NOT a competition). Yeah, this section is good. Too bad that the funny is all at the beginning, although I think that's okay.
  • 5 Notes: Notes sections can be a good thing or a bad thing. I think they're okay, but it's always kind of annoying to have to click something in the middle of reading.
Concept: 6 It's REALLY hard to write a good article about wiki-ing. People on VFH dislike it because the random website reader won't get it, and I think that's why I give this a 6. There's not much you can do to change this: this article only appeals to folks like me who ran fucking amok inside Uncyc until we lost our joyful Uncyc youthfulness and turned into angry old codgers. Other than that, this is not a popular article, per se, but I think you knew that.

Ideas for expansion off the top of my head? OK!

  • Sockpuppets: Because most users are sockpuppets, that means fewer people will care that you're missing.
  • Bots: Because most edits are done by auto-wikibots (AWBs), nobody will care that you're not editing anymore.
Prose and formatting: 10 I think I saw "there for" instead of "therefore" somewhere in there, but that's not much. =corrected the problem=
Literecy-cat
Images: 7 I barely noticed the pictures, but I don't know how you could improve on them.
Miscellaneous: 7.2 You can haz numbahs?
Final Score: 35.9 Now, if this were MY article, I would leave it alone for a while and let inspiration about it come to me (most of my articles are like that). If you don't have time to leave it alone, just reorganize it like I suggested in humor: mush all the good and bad together into STRESS, DISORDER, and whatever the third one was, and get rid of BENEFITS and DRAWBACKS. Your score would be higher with those gone. Hope I helped, Heerenveen!
Reviewer:   Le Cejak <Apr 20, 2008 [14:37]>
Personal tools
projects