Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Womp Rat

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Womp Rat

The never-ending HELP! plea...

Funnybony 07:23, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

I'm a quater of the way through. Will resume in a few hours. ~Scriptsiggy.JPGTelephonesig Star Starsig Kidneysig 05:46, Jan 30, 2010
Oops, one of my noob blunders. I'm such a noob. I really didn't know that saving it like this puts it in "reviewed". Really, really sorry. But I'll finish by today, I promise. ~Scriptsiggy.JPGTelephonesig Star Starsig Kidneysig 05:49, Jan 30, 2010
Humour: 7 General Comments

I think this is sort of well-written, and reminds me of a shorter and less in-depth unidentified man in green firing turret, which you should probably read. I think it's pretty good as it is and there's nothing that I don't really like. I chuckled about twice, which is good considering the length of your article. The only improvement I can suggest is to maybe develop your concept more, lengthen the article and have more jokes.

  • This is ok in that it explains your subject matter, and references your main joke. It's not really a problem but the main point - that womp rats get shot at - is not emphasized. So, yeah, you might wanna think about making the recurring joke very clear early on, or not, it's up to you.

Nature and Appearance

  • These sections are ok. I'm thinking that they set the premise and explain your joke, but I didn't find them especially funny.


  • "savaging royalties from Lucas Films" - I like this.


  • If a womp rat was never in Star Wars, how do you know Luke shot it? Should probably be clarified.

Habitat and use

  • This is again, yet another repetition of the getting shot at joke, which is ok.


  • "The sound they make when hit by a laser blast" - I like this.
Concept: 7 This sounds like an article that primarily uses "repetition", which is not that original. While that's not bad, and I can think of at least one article that got featured solely on the joke of repetition, it's also, in my opinion, not er...outstanding?
  • This article is a bit short and not that substantial. You can leave it as it is, or you can expand it along the lines of "womp rats exist solely to get shot by main characters" or something like that.
  • I see some potential directions for this: one way is to emphasize the repetition more, another way is to keep them as they are but add jokes about other aspects (thereby de-emphasizing the repetition).
Prose and formatting: 8.5 Prose is good, and I didn't see any errors. So...uh, if I have to find something to say, maybe too many hyphens? I think people don't normally put hyphens in words like intergalactic, but I could be mistaken.
  • "otherwise he would have missed, obviously!" - a departure from your pseudo-encyclopedic tone. Normally I don't like inconsistency, and I think a change in tone should only be used for contrast or to make a point.
Images: 6 Most images are ok but not especially funny.
  • The first one is not meant to be funny, and I think it's ok.
  • The second one - should be "...womp rat standing...", because there is only one womp rat. Probably your funniest image. =(
  • The third one, I guess it illustrates the article, and I found it ok.
  • The fourth - Where does "moxie" come in? Should this be explained?
  • I do think you need funnier images or captions.
Miscellaneous: 7.1 The prose is nice and non-random, the kind of article that I like. Overally, this article is ok but it might be a bit short. There are no really bad parts but some parts could use more funny. Note that scoring is arbitrary.
Final Score: 35.6 If you need further help or clarification, you can always talk to me on my talk page.
Reviewer: ~Scriptsiggy.JPGTelephonesig Star Starsig Kidneysig 11:33, Jan 30, 2010
Personal tools