Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/World Wrestling Entertainment

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit World Wrestling Entertainment

Mr Fantasy13 20:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Humour: 1 All it takes to see the problem with this one is a quick glance at its edit history. There's, what, 80 editors who have contributed to it in the last year? 40 of whom are anonymous IPs? And I don't see a single editor "overseeing" it - no one is reverting additions that suck; no one is removing in-joke-cruft; no one is maintaining any sense of structure.

This is an article, frankly, that will probably never be good. Even if someone took a whole day off work and made it good, it would be vandalized into oblivion within a month. It's a topic that 1) is popular among pre-teen boys; 2) has homoerotic overtones; and 3) contains a long list of characters. It's a disaster waiting to happen. It's a disaster that has happened.

The thing about drive-by editors is that they rarely want to delete each other's work. So they add. And add. And add, and add, and add. Drive-by editors love lists. They see a list of 10 things, one of which might be funny, but do they ever erase the other nine things and incorporate the good one into the text? Nope. They add an eleventh thing to the list.

And am I going to read a series of interminable lists, hoping that I might find a chuckle buried somewhere in there? I am not. Instead, I'm going to browse over to a page like Category:HowTo, where listspam is rare.

So, how many long, pointless lists does this article have? Let's see:

  • The twenty-six commandments God handed down re: the WWE.
  • A list of "conflicts."
  • A list of "champions."
  • A never-ending list of wrestlers. What makes this even worse is that all these wrestlers already have their own articles. And almost none of those articles have any redeeming value whatsoever.
  • A list of fictional wrestlers.
  • A list of retired wrestlers.
  • Kitten Huffing.
  • A list of women wrestlers.
  • A list of quotes about wrestlers' lifespans.
  • A list of "see alsos"

Now, let me ask: did the inclusion of "Kitten Huffing" in my "list of lists that can be found in the WWE article" make anyone laugh uproariously? If not, consider that there might be a problem with an article that is just an endless series of pointless lists, peppered with unfunny Internet memes.

Concept: 1 There is no concept to this article. It is, rather, fifty concepts, strung together with duct tape.
Prose and formatting: 1 1 for utter inconsistency. Sure, some sentences are fine. But then you've got stuff like "This being, known to many as Oprah (The richest freakin' talkshow host.), and to others as Samuel L. Jackson (who the hell is he?), was almost equal in power to Our Holy McMahon." What does any of that mean? Did any particular author write that, or was it just vandalized into that shape? No one can possibly know. (Well, I guess I can know, if I run an endless series of diffs on the history, but even I have more of a life than that).
Images: 1 Let's see, we have a cropped version of the logo; a picture of Vince McMahon dancing - one that has nothing to do with the article or its placement therein - with a caption that declares him "gay"; a Photoshop of Agent Smith shooting a wrestler; and three other equally pointless pictures. They don't add anything to the article at all. They aren't funny on their own, and they aren't funny in context. The only argument not to delete them is that otherwise the article would be a long, unbroken block of text.
Miscellaneous: 1 Averaged.
Final Score: 5 If it were up to me, I would huff this immediately. This pee review might seem harsh, but in order for a review to hurt someone's feelings, an author has to exist who has feelings that might be hurt. And that's the entire problem with this article: no one's taking care of it. The inmates are running the asylum. So, if anything, what I'd like you to take away from this review is that I (for one) encourage you to blank this piece of crap and write something that will make me smile.

By the way, Mr_Fantasy13, I checked out your own contributions to the article. It looks like your contributions have consisted of erasing four terrible non-jokes. Good for you; but if you're actually interested in salvaging this, you have about four thousand to go. I honestly think any approach other than erasing everything and starting clean would be unwise.

Reviewer: Hyperbole 00:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Comment: Just to add - be very careful if you do follow this advice completely. Blanking and starting again, while probably the best approach for this article, is not an approach to recommend per se - bans tend to get handed out to page blankers, unless you can pre-warn that you're doing this with the best intentions, a better approach may me to write a better article in your userspace at User:Mr Fantasy13/World Wrestling Entertainment. You can work on it there with no fear of bans for blanking. When you think it's ready, an swift review to confirm it's better than what's there (not hard, judging from this score) and you can copy it over the original with an edit summary to advise you're replacing it with an approved rewrite. Much less chance of a ban that way! --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 20:33, May 9

Personal tools
projects