From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
It's my second article. Comments? --Nothing 07:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Almost forgot. The vandalism is intentional and is supposed to be for humor. Thanks.
--Nothing 07:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
|Humour:||4||The good news is that HTBFANJS doesn't completely apply. There's nothing in here that's ridiculously and pointlessly random. There's nothing in here about Chuck Norris, Grues, homosexuality, or pooping. So that's the good news: it avoids all the most common traps.
The bad news is that I really, really can't find anything to laugh, chuckle, or even smile at in here. Let's go through it and see what went wrong.
|Concept:||5||The concepts "Reasons to vandalize" or "Reasons not to vandalize" are both pretty solid article topics. I don't think they're going to work in the same article at the same time, though. And if so, they need to be organized into some kind of "pros" and "cons" list - we can't just oscillate wildly between them.|
|Prose and formatting:||2||This is in desperate, desperate need of proofreading. It's one thing to put all the commas in the wrong places and capitalize the wrong words, but it's another thing entirely when a sentence is so confused that I can't even figure out what it's trying to communicate. Don't get me wrong: I'm not a grammar nazi. Some linguists will tell you that the only bad grammar is grammar that fails to communicate what it intends - and they make a good point. But even by that standard, this is really bad. Perhaps a good idea would be to read it out loud, or have someone read it out loud to you, and see whether the sentences make sense.|
|Images:||6||They aren't all that great. It's hard to tell what the first one is (is it a jungle gym that's been burned down?) And the second one is just an MS-Paint scrawl. It's not "vandalism" to MS-Paint a white background. Drawing a moustache on a billboard: yes. Using the "spray can" tool on a blank bitmap: no. Perhaps this should have more classic examples of vandalism; graffiti comes to mind.|
|Final Score:||21.3||This could really use a lot of work. If you look at Uncyclopedia:Pee_Review/Guidelines, a 21.3 suggests that the article shouldn't necessarily be deleted, but needs an almost total rewrite. And that sounds about right.|
|Reviewer:||Hyperbole 21:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)|