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

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Wikipedia Main Page

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) YTTETalk!Read!Sign!Whore!CMC!Pee!

Ohh boy, I look forward to seeing the review for this! Warm Regards, ▀ĴαVắśСąР▀ 10:06 April 19 2014
What, why? /me looks around shiftily P.S. Your sig was leaking! - [17:11 30 May] Sir FSt. Don Pleb Yettie (talk) QotF BFF NotM RotM UNPotM UGotM CUN PEE SR UnProvise
Nopee PrIP'd!
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:
~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUNWotMRotMAotMVFHSKPEEINGHPBFF 

Oi, this could be a bit of a doozy. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUNWotMRotMAotMVFHSKPEEINGHPBFF @ 18:02 May 30

UPDATE: Yeah, this could take me a while. Don't expect me to be finished in 20 minutes or anything. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUNWotMRotMAotMVFHSKPEEINGHPBFF @ 18:19 May 30

NOTE: This review table was NOT filled out in order. To read it in chronological order, start with Concept and then read Humour.

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.
  • Policies • Policies 2...More Policies - I thought this was good because you did touch on the bureaucratic nature of Wikipedia, which I thought you were going to focus more on. Also, the first one was the only funny one. The others were just copied from Wikipedia. Sure, it makes their policies look ridiculous, but at the same time, you could have had some fun with them.
  • Dash - What makes this funny is that it's a real article. Wikipedia features some ridiculous shit, and even though you didn't satirize it much, leaving it in its original form is probably funnier.
  • Wikipedia Languages - Don't ask me why I thought that was funny. I realize that the German is supposed to be Nazis, which I don't think is funny. But the fact that it's the only other languages kinda made me laugh.
  • DYK section - Good stuff in there, I liked the bit about eating babies.
  • Wikinews - Hit and miss, some of the titles make for quick zingers while others just fall into the monotony of ethnocentrism and Nazi jokes.

Now, some general ideas for improving.

  • Ease up on the Nazi jokes. Nazis are a little clichéd now, (I don't know why anyone would write an article about Nazis anymore and expect to be featured that way) and while the Nazi jokes are perfectly appropriate here, I think you should put more focus on the overly bureaucratic nature of Wikipedia. You've already got some references to it, just try to replace some Nazi jokes with bureaucracy jokes.
  • Don't steal so much of Wikipedia's content. Sporking is fine, just do a better sporking job. Change up some content and make it diabolical to fit the language of the rest of the article. It should sound didactic and encyclopedic, but to the point of being overly cold and evil as a result.
  • More penis. Wait, there's enough penis. No there isn't. I'll be back in twenty five minutes.
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.
Miscellaneous: 7.3 Avg'd.
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.
Reviewer: ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUNWotMRotMAotMVFHSKPEEINGHPBFF @ 22:16 Jun 2
Personal tools
projects