Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Wikipedia Main Page (Third Opinion)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Hey ho, hey ho, off to work we go. Ok, this is a third and maybe, but probably not, final opinion on my Wikipedia Main Page article. My last review from Javascap was very useful. I think I've now covered pretty much all the things he said to improve upon. I dunno, what do you think? I was hoping that one day this may make it to VFH, but that's probably in the distant-ish future, right not. Thanks in advance! - 07:45 25 May Sir FSt. (QotF BFF NotM)
- Ohh boy, I look forward to seeing the review for this! Warm Regards, ▀ĴαVắśСąР▀ 02:03 September 25 2016
- What, why? /me looks around shiftily P.S. Your sig was leaking! - [17:11 30 May]
Pee Review In Progress
Checkit bitches, this review is as good as peed on. I'm marking my effing territory. Said article is being reviewed by:
Oi, this could be a bit of a doozy.
- UPDATE: Yeah, this could take me a while. Don't expect me to be finished in 20 minutes or anything.
NOTE: This review table was NOT filled out in order. To read it in chronological order, start with Concept and then read Humo
|Humour:||7||As great as this idea was, it elicited very few laughs. But before I go into areas that I feel need improvement, I'll touch on the funnys right now because there were plenty of them.
Now, some general ideas for improving.
|Concept:||8||I'm starting with the concept because I think this is a cool idea. One of the things I've come to expect from my YTTE articles is an innovative concept. You have a rather unconventional approach to article writing, which is both a good thing and a bad thing. In this case, I think it's a good thing. This is a neat idea for parodying Wikipedia in a very direct way. This score was originally a 9 for the overall idea.
But as I read some of your content, I found the narcissistic presentation got very old very fast. The article seems to repeat itself far too many times to be clever. You could have hit on so many other Wikipedia jokes. I dunno. I just expected to see more than Jimbo Wales popping up all over the place. Make it a little more real. Make it a little more...bureaucratic.
|Prose and formatting:||6||I'll take this time to elaborate on what I think I already touched on in the humor section. By sporking a lot of content from Wikipedia, you lose a lot of your consistency. The general idea of this article is that Wikipedia is a huge, evil army of totalitarian editors. But some of your content is very encyclopedic-sounding and awkward sounding in the context. Sporking articles from Wikipedia is fine, but you need to change it up to make it fit.|
|Images:||8||Great images. I can't think of too many other things for this section, I see no room for improvement. This is a great looking article down to the last detail.|
|Final Score:||36.3||Great parody of Wikipedia, however it could be so much better. This is exactly the kind of article I would expect from a maverick writer like yourself, and it was well executed. Your scores are pretty accurate, in my opinion. This is around 4 points shy of VFH. Follow (or ignore) my recommendations and you could do well on VFH with this thing. However, being such an unorthodox concept, it may be rejected by people who prefer more traditional articles. Be prepared for that. But I liked this. Good job.|