Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Vandalize

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Why?:Vandalize

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.

  • The lede: Major problems, here. First, it gives a basically accurate, if sloppy, definition of vandalizing. That's not really a joke at all. Then it says that vandals have no lives, are sexually inadequate, have small penises, and live in their mothers' basements. Let me refer you to a cardinal rule of humor: "Angry != Funny". Calling someone pathetic is not funny unless you can think of a particularly wicked, creative way to drive the point home. Sexual inadequacy, small penises, and residence with one's parents are three of the least creative ways to drive the point home. Almost anything else would be better.
  • The "so why should you vandalize" section: The main problem with this section is that I cannot understand the writing. I don't know what it means. Let's just look at the first four sentences. Read these carefully. Do they honestly make any sense? I have no idea what the article is trying to say at this point.
    • For one thing, it makes you feel better then ever. Who wouldn't want to go through the same thing over and over. Filing that thing, writing that article, etcetera, etcetera. When you realize that the whole thing becomes boring after the 87th time you've done it.
  • The section continues on, completely incomprehensible:
    • Everyone does, that's who! It brings style and substance to everything cause Vandalism is style, it's substance and most of all. It's annoying, and people in contrary belief.
  • The "vandalism" section itself: The main problem with this is that it doesn't look anything like vandalism. Vandals very rarely open new sections, with section headers and everything, and then bang violently on the keyboard. Rather, they're more likely to go to the very top of the article, before any of the templates or anything, and write something like "ROBERT BRANSON IS DUMB AND ALL THE GIRLS THINK HE'S DUMB!!".
  • The conclusion: We're hitting major consistency problems here. The article starts off "Vandals are morons... but here are some good reasons to vandalize! Valid reasons that don't sound moronic at all!" And then, it concludes with "You vandalized? You're a moron." So what's the theme of this article, anyway? I'm lost.
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.
Miscellaneous: 4.3 Averaged.
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)
Personal tools