Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Wikipedia Main Page (Second Opinion)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 13:23, May 3, 2008 by YesTimeToEdit (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit Wikipedia Main Page

Hey, I haven't actually really, changed this page, that much, I've done a little bit of work BUT last time I got quite a harsh review from The Improver (aka NXWave) and I know UU thought it was pretty harsh too, and he expressed some opinions about the article... Anyway last Pee Review left me confuddled as to what I should really do, now I'm just looking for a second opinion, maybe UU could expand more on his comments from last time or someone else could just give me an entirely new opinion. Either way, I just want to have a second opinion. Thanks!

- 11:47 28 AprilSir FSt. (QotF BFF NotM) YTTETalk!Read!Sign!Whore!CMC!Pee!

My apologies for the delay, but look on the bright side, the pee is here!

Humour: 7 This article started off strong, definitely hitting from a few different angles, almost all of which were somewhat expected. At Uncyclopedia, we already know that Wikipedia is host to a hoard of vile, fact-addicted commies, we already know that Wikipedians bow down in worship to Jimbo Wales…. *ahem*

While I do think highly of the humour in this article, I honestly believe it focuses WAAAAYYYY to much on the Nazi policies of Wikipedia. I honestly think that some improvement in the humour section could be used in the “On This Day” section, while redundancy can be a usable source of humour once or twice, 10 repeats of the same thing is just… blah.

But aside from that one problem (And the only major issue I can see) you clearly did a good job giving me something to laugh at over my lunch (for the last 3 days)

Concept: 8 For the most part, everyone on Uncyclopedia seems to love the Satire of Wikipedia. But in all the Wikipedia related articles I have seen, nobody seems to have taken it upon themselves to make a fresh offspin on the main page of Wikipedia. I will admit I am somewhat jealous of this idea, and wish I had stolen it for myself before you got to it! The only reason this score is somewhat reduced is because of the sheer amount of Wikipedia articles, but hey, don’t rip yourself apart over it.
Prose and formatting: 9 Exquisite grammar, which is what I would have expected out of this article. There is a decent abundance of blue links, and the grammar and spelling in the multiple “policies” tab is well written, and almost believable. The “In the News” section was formatted precisely as the real “News” section at Wikipedia, but a close look at the “On This Day” revealed the ONLY typo I could find. Here is the text from the first “On This Day”.

“in ‘’’face’’’ he can see YOU right now. And he doesn't like the top you're wearing, at all” (I think you mean, in ‘’’fact’’’ he can see YOU right now)

There were a few small problems with the “Other areas of Wikipedia” , mostly including the redirects. The “Village Slums” redirect was interesting, but it only directs to the Wikipedia article on the “Village Pump”, which redirects itself to “Water Well”, which I believe is far removed from what you intended for the redirect to lead to. The same problem exists for the “News” section, which redirects to the article on News, which does not exist. Finally, the reference desk has the same problem, linking to the article on the reference desk,

Some of the links are plain broken, including the Local Embassy, and the Community Genocide, which I know are meant to redirect into the respective areas. I think this area can be most improved by probing around on Wikipedia and throwing in the proper links, rather then links to the article.

Images: 7 Well, they were all relevant and well used, so I don’t really see much to criticise in this article. I did enjoy the “featured” article on the proper use of capitilisation, and how you had an image of the “Aa”, a well placed photograph, I do dare say. The image of the dash on the alternative “featured article” was also well placed. The image placement of the Jimbo photograph was not bad at all, but the “In the news” photo seems a bit cramped and spread out, and is the only image I think needs any work.
Miscellaneous: 7.75 Avg’d as per Pee Review guidelines
Final Score: 38.75 Quite the good article shaping up here, and one I can readily see being featured, but like any article, you DO have some homework to do. This article needs:
  1. Fixing of the one spelling error
  2. Death to the extreme redundancy in the On This Day section
  3. More featured articles, I did like, when looking through the history, the one on Nazism
  4. Modifications of the Wikipedia links to the intended source

Definitely a potential featured article, which I already pointed out, but as always, it could use a few tweaks to get up there. Good luck!

Reviewer: Warm Regards, Javascap


  1. Fixing of the one spelling error Yup, done.
  2. Death to the extreme redundancy in the On This Day section I need add some more, but I got rid of most of the Jimbo Wales repetition.
  3. More featured articles, I did like, when looking through the history, the one on Nazism Added Nazism as a third "featured article" option.
  4. Modifications of the Wikipedia links to the intended source. I've been struggling to find interesting links, but I think I've pretty much cleared this up.

- 13:23 3 May Sir FSt. (QotF BFF NotM) YTTETalk!Read!Sign!Whore!CMC!Pee!

Personal tools
projects