Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/concerned signmakers

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 21:12, November 7, 2008 by Nachlader (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit concerned signmakers

Allmightyred 17:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Review as I promised. Remember that I have to go along with PEE guidelines and be as critical as possible, but I will also be as helpful as possible. --Nachlader 21:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Humour: 3 Not extremely rich with humour, if I am honest, and I would be too generous if I gave this a 4. However, the article could potentially get a 6 and work towards an adequate level of humour as an Uncyclopedia article if you give this article a thorough think through (and I mean a THOROUGH think through). Of the articles I made that I showed you, they took several days worth (a week or two maybe) of thinking about before I executed them ruthlessly with a machete. It isn't easy. Rome, as it were, wasn't built in a day.

The content just seems to ramble on a bit and eventually it feels like I'm listening to my grandad, on his sixth can of beer, talk about whatever comes to mind. It definately shows a critical lack of attention on your behalf towards the subject and the idea of humour. This is shown further in the... Overuse of already overused internet memes you use in the course of the article. As well as that, the quotes in the "Quotes from people thankful to the concerned signmakers" are so very random, it's like you Google'd for a randomiser-generator thingy and copy-pasted all it's wisdom into that one section. Bear in mind to use jokes that are actually related to the article's subject and concept, rather than anywhere else. "Hugh Jass" being a case in point.

The examples section is not exploited enough. It is a great opportunity for you to make a list of one-liners, but with only six mostly uncomprehendable sign examples, it's not good enough. Get rid of the "-and" as well.

Concept: 3 I'm slightly worried about where you got the idea for this article, but somehow the concept you conceived has a degree of promise, but it's not particularly obvious in the article's current state. But it is very hard to think about.

Points regarding the concept are usually given if the idea is fresh, easy to work with (simple, yet original) and clicks with humour standards. This concept is lost in a sea of overused memes, so it is far from fresh. It is not easy to work with, it'd take a pretty genuine comedic mind to set this article alight. It didn't have me rofl'ing on the floor lmao'ing my arse off, so it's not up to scratch in terms of humour.

You need to think about less complicated subjects. Yes, all those easy topics on Jesus, Hitler, World War II, Britain and AAAAAAA that you wanted to do have already been done, but that's not to say it is hard to think of a great concept that everyone will want to listen to (and regret having not thought of earlier). Hell, even now I can think of a few subjects that nobody's done yet. I won't reveal them though, for I intend to make them my own. Sorry?

Anyway, yes. The execution of the concept has also gone amiss, so the concept itself still may have some hope.

Prose and formatting: 4 Mmmhmm. The content could definately be expanded, but even so, the current prose is rife with typos, badly organised, rather ugly on the eye and is need of lengthy edits. I would make a list of several typos, but you only have to be reading the article for five seconds until you find yourself in a forest of mispellings. Reading through what you've typed up several times can do a world of good for the article's prose.

The structure and organisation of the prose needs a revamp. As you know, Uncyclopedia is the opposite of Wikipedia, another encyclopedia that actually tells people all sorts of crappy lies. The articles in Uncyc are designed very much in the same way as it's Wiki counterpart. Note the similarities between the Wikipedia article on Scotland [1] and the Uncyclopedia version.

Both articles start with an "Introduction". Introduce the reader to your article, make it gripping, make it interesting and above all, make it humourous. You need to ensure that the reader still wants to even be a reader after the introduction. Otherwise, who's going to bother about reading your articles? Before the section that follows the introduction, a table of contents enlightens the reader of the list of topics in your article. Usually this is done automatically if you have more than three headlines, but if you're unsure, just type in the coding: __TOC__. Then from here, the onslaught of the article can begin. The best way would be to start with a History" or "Origins" section, to show the roots of the subject you are writing an article about. In this article's case, where did the concerned signmakers originate from? Who are the founding members? Why did they form the group? After this, the sections can flow in, in chronogical order preferably. Say, the next section could be "The superheros at work" or maybe some profiles on the characters involved, an opportunity to get some original content down, with the introduction, summary and history of the subject already done. The final sections usually involve headlines like "Recent events", "End of the [Insert Subject Here]" or even "Death". If you want to add sections that are just lists of things, say how an article on a singer might have a discography section, the best place for them is after you have explained the subject in the article. So your "Quotes from happy customers" and "Examples of signs" would go here. Then that'd be the structure done and dusted with.

Of the current sections, I'd suggest that you convert the "Inspiraton" section into a "Origins" headline, and just keep expanding on the article. I would concede however, that it would be hard to improve the article, as the concept is somewhat complicated. Again, just think about it more.

Images: 5 Three images supplied. The inspiration for the article, if I correctly remember you saying, draws from the "this sign has sharp edges" image. Unfortunately, this is yet another old internet meme and the image is used in various other parts of Uncyclopedia. The second image seems a bit random. A lot articles mention someone having lunch or dinner or whatever, but they don't show images of the food they ate. The third image is somewhat comfortable, but only because it's a sign that details humourous context.

I would suggest that you lose the second image and concentrate on images with humourous signs. This an article on an observational based object after all. Other image suggestions would be a picture of some people working on a sign, with a caption labeling them as the signmakers in question. Comprehende?

Miscellaneous: 3.75 Average'd.
Final Score: 18.75 Certainly not as bad as I thought it might be for your first article, but it's not openly hilarious. That's not to say it can't be rescued however, and the NRV tag may definately be repealed if you can improve the article. If you're still unsure and you don't know how to implement my suggestions, you can always draft me in to help you think of some material, although ideas that are easier to work with would help.
Reviewer: --Nachlader 21:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects