Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/World Wildlife Fund (quick)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit World Wildlife Fund

Hello. I'm looking for an opinion. I'm not interested in doing major edits or anything like that, since I want to have a break from Uncyclopedia after this. I just want to know if this article is VFH material. Most of the images are credited to Sonje. Thanks in advance to the pisser to comes to aid. --SoIwastolazytolearnGermanic.jpg-kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 18:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is under review by
Gerry Cheevers.

Sayeth Gerry: shotgun!!
Humour: 7 i like the intro. good introduction of concept, good drawing in of the reader. i want to read more. the last sentence of the first paragrpah is confusing and long, but otherwise a solid start. you've got some more confusion in the history section, but i'll edit the article after my review to try and make it a little clearer (feel free to revert if you don't like changes). solid stuff in history, i like your direction. instead of listing the required changes, perhaps you could just say something general like 'animal violence' followed by the changes, for clarity's sake. the food chain system doesn't really make much sense, so if you had a point, then make it more obvious, or if you intended it to not make sense, then good job. i like the rivalry matches bit, but the film part was kinda strange. the dog vs cat narration was kind of random, and it might fit better in another part of the article instead of 'feud chain'. the match types section is good, but try to aoid using the first person, as it takes away from the formal encyclopedic tone. the tone ws good for the first few sections, but you kind of lose it in the match types section. i have to say i laughed out loud when i read the headline 'shark v chihuahua'. good start to the wwf champion section. you do seem to flip-flop between the animals being simple animals and the animals having human qualities, such as being able to talk. if you stuck with only one (i'd lean towards just good old animals) then the article would be more consistent and thus funnier. the title match descriptions get a little tedious, i think you could mention the title briefly but go in another direction with the article. the conclusion, i.e. the controversy section, is rather short and not really a strong ending.
Concept: 8.5 5/5 points for a well-known subject worthy of parody.

3.5/5 points for execution. i love the idea of merging the world wildlife fund with the world wrestling federation, but you kind of get off track towards the end. try to stay encyclopedic and focus on the organization itself rather than individual matches.

Prose and formatting: 5 you had some confusing prose in a few places. also, "its" is possessive, "it's" is "it is". i will give these a fix-up for you. your formatting was fine, other than the ugly white space in your intro.
Images: 8 i have to say the images are really good, sonje is a great 'chopper. some of the captions could be better, such as the first one and the cage match one.
Miscellaneous: 7.2 averaged using maths
Final Score: 35.7 my preview button tells me that your final score is 35.7, redering this right at 'adequate' territory. i would most likely abstain if faced with this on VFH, becasue i love the idea and most of the article, but don't like the way it trailed off toward the end away from the doings of the first half of the article. if you looked at the wikipedia pages for the wwf and the wwe, i'm sure you could come up with some interesting subjects worthy of parody. by all menas keep a small amount of title match description, but as it stands half your article is match descriptions, and i think it's too much. with a restructuring of the second half i think this could easily pass VFH, but in my opinion you need to do a little work on it first. good job, good luck, and come find me on my talk page if you have any questions.
Reviewer: SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 16:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools