Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/crunk

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit crunk 18:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Concept: 3.5 Your article is way too random, especially in the history part. As a rule, made up anachronistic histories are not funny. They only serve to confuse the reader. As a rule, those articles that are closest to the truth are the funniest. Please see HTBFANJS for some hints on writing.

Also, try to avoid lists when possible. Lists tend to attract nonsense items, and don't flow as well as paragraphs. Whenever possible, convert lists to paragraphs of prose. I am not saying you should never use lists, but try to keep their use to a minimum.

This article has the feeling that it never really addresses the subject matter, it begins with a made-up history, followed by a fact biography, then goes into lists. Now some of this material might be keep able, but it feels like the article is missing a core. That generally is not a good sign, it often means the article will be hard to write about and will degenerate into lists and image spam. You need to add more text to the article, and consider rewriting the history section.

Also, if your trying to make this a good article, it means your have to re-work the entire article. Articles written by several different writers will tend to contradict themselves and flow horribly. Editing such articles to a coherent state is almost as much work as writing a new article.
Prose and Formatting: 5.5 The spelling and grammar looks ok, and you have avoided red links. However, there are some issues. I corrected the following:

Image Location Try to spread the pics out. Never position an image (or a long template) where it will generate white space. Also, images tend to look better on the right, especially in lists. I wasn't able to get all the images in a good location, there is still a bunch of pics toward the bottom, but it is better than it was. The fact that captain crunk isn't introduced until late prevents me from moving those pics any higher. Also, the poser pics wouldn't look good higher either.

White space You only need one line between items, if that. You don't need to have lines before or after images.

Lists should be bulletted or numbered. I did change the list of crunk tenets from a paragraph to a list, due to how it was formatted, I think that is how the author wanted it.

Orphaned see also link I put some more links at the bottom. It makes your article have less white space, and adds some length. Also, a single item lists don't look right.

Things I couldn't fix quickly You probably should have a pic on the right at the very top of the article. It sucks up some of the white space generated by the quotes and table on contents. Generally, it should be a pic of the subject matter, and it should generally be milde(-ish) compared to the other pics. You should save the more outlandish pics for late in the article. Also, I'm sure if you should keep the crunk template at the top. It would ruin a deadpan entry, but I'm not sure a deadpan entry would be feasible with this article.
Images: 6.5
Hungry hungry hamster

Never insert random unrelated pics into an article, regardless of how funny they are

The images are good, and a few are actually quite good, but some don't seem related. Like many articles with too many authors, pics tend to accumulate without regard to how much they help the article. I would definitively keep the two about captain crunk, and maybe keep the poser squad. The captain crunk images are funny in themselves which is always a good thing, the poser squad might be funny as an example of what isn't crunk.

The naked fat guy and the picture of Tom Cruise don't really have anything to do with the article. Random funny pics don't help an article, they only make it feel random. One might be ok, but two is a bit much.

The relatively low score (6.5 isn't that bad) is due more to the presence of bad images and the "image mob" than the lack of good images. It could probably be a 7.5 or 8 if they could be arranged better.
Humour: 3.5 By section.

Introduction: I would seriously re-work the quotes. Don't have quotes by characters who are introduced in the article, that only confuses the reader. Remember, you reader doesn't know what the article says when they start reading. Sometimes, the author simplicity assumes the reader will have information that they don't. In addition, I'd advice making the intro a bit longer.

History: this section is complete bullocks. I have seen worse, and it does stay on the subject of crunk, but the random dates give it a nonsense feel. There may be some savable stuff in here, but random histories are not funny.

Captain Crunk I would keep this section (in some form) if only to preserve the pics. The biography might need to de-randomification.

Crunk as a Way of Life I'd say keep, with some de-randomification. Specifically, try to keep the dates within reason.What is Crunk and remainder: This list should probably be higher up in the article. Also, it has some random items. The what is not crunk might need some work. Your reader probably doesn't want to read a list of uncool things.
Improvability Score: 5 The article has some funny material, however, it needs a core to hold together the existent material. You may find that writing the core of the article will be more difficult than expected; the more outlandish the topic, the harder it is to write about it. I'd advise working on this one, but don't be surprised if you run into some difficulty.
Final Score: 24 Despite it randomness, this article generally doesn't stray too far from its topic. With some work, this could be better, but don't be surprised if you have trouble getting it to "good article" standards.
Reviewer: --Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 00:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools