Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/alycia lane

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Alycia Lane

Humour: 5 Where's the humour? Oh, I guess it's subtle. It feels too encyclopedic. There's no real need for facts as Uncyclopedia's not a place for facts, so get rid of most of those immediately (e.g. birth date) :P I think what the article needs is some blatant stuff added to it, as it feels too much like a wikipedia article. It's well-structured as far as a wikipedia article goes, but I think yew should check out Uncyclopedia:Best of, a page where yew can get an idea of how the best articles on Uncyc are written; and then yew can adapt the general way the article's written into a better way, thus making it funnier :)
Concept: 6 Can't comment much on it as I'm from england, but it looks like it's a story about an obscure female journalist. Are yew a fan? Not sure it's a very good idea but I get where ywr coming from.
Prose and formatting: 7 Perfect grammar and no spelling mistakes, but I'm afraid I'm gonna have to fault yew for the feel of the article... it's not quite right reading a highly "encyclopedic" as such article in uncyclopedia. It needs to be less factual.
Images: 9 The picture is definitely funny. It's nice how it looks well done (well, as well done as a "forged" pic can look :P) in that the picture is well produced and it's a pretty novel way of making a pic like that. All it needs is a funny caption underneath it... if ywr not sure how to (hey, some people don't!) then just copy and paste this: [[Image:062607alycialane.jpg|right|thumb|350px|caption goes here]].
Miscellaneous: 6.8 Average of all ywr other scores (5,6,7,9) using {{Pee|5|6|7|9}}. This is because "Miscellany" is a hard thing to define in a written text. :P
Final Score: 33.8 Please, follow what I've said and make it seems less factual... write it in any other way than factual, 'cos, well, it doesn't work, in almost all cases. Ywv definitely got a good idea for an article and some good ideas for the funny in it, so get working and it will be a good article =D
Reviewer: User:Fag/sig 13:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools