Talk:Pope Clement VI
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
My latest offering. There actually was no Charles III of Britain but this is Uncyclopedia so...
To mention a few details that I noticed while proofreading the article:
- I think it still needs some tidying up when it comes to the content. Basics are very well done, but the style could be upped a notch, as the general tone of the article seems to be "serious", which could be emphasized and spiced with a tad of sarcasm...
- I can also recommend using a browser with a built-in spell checker. Mozilla Firefox for example has a decent one, and mine is fluent in both British and American.
- Then, I have the obvious upperhand for being a humongous Shakespeare fan, but as a tip, since the title of the article is one that makes us expect something classy, it is recommendable to attempt make the overall tone of the article a bit more dry. Just my opinion, though. As if anyone would listen to me anyway... ---- DameViktoria 04:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
| User:DJ Irreverent/Charles III|
is being reviewed by
Your Source for Fine Scented Pee
And Whatever Else Comes Out Of Him
- What? What am I doing here? • <-> Feb 6 (00:10)
- I've been gone so long, I'm gonna make this count. • <-> Feb 6 (13:54)
|Humour:||7.8||Average of those thingies I used to average!
I don't remember much since the bus hit me in early January, but I remember that you're an above average writer. However something was holding it back. It feels like it was almost an 8, but you had too much self-degenerating humor at the end, the last two sentences mostly. It's cool to say "yeah, this article sucks", but I wouldn't go so far as to say it more than once in the article. Just talk about how Charles III sucked. Almost an 8, if that means anything.
Now that I'm looking at uncyclopedia as a guest rather than a long-time resident, like I was in December, I'm starting to see better what "funny" is. I suggest you stay for a few more months, then get the WotM thing and lots of awards, and then say "oh crap, I feel unfunny now!" and then leave for a month and touch base every so often. Until then, continue writing in infoboxes. The medieval pacman thing is holding you back from a 10, btw. Too random.
I think everybody knows that his life is not important, so lines like "Also the current king may have died or something unimportant like that" fall flat. The rest of this section was somewhat impressive, though.
Classic DJ Irreverent. ...wait, are you old enough to be classic yet? The reason you got a perfect score was because of the interplay with not only the notes but the pictures, too. Good job!!
This section was funny but it was too confusing. I don't know if you should really talk about the history of anything but Charles III, or else it might get kind of confusing. I kinda felt confuzzled by the history lesson, here.
The death part was fine, but maybe too much going back and forth between the notes. I like the notes section, don't get me wrong, but there was too much down there that could've been up there IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
The legacy section wasn't as funny as the best parts of the article, but it had a rousing poem. B+!
I would keep most of the notes except the "chunder box" thing. That was... odd. The rest were pretty good, actually.
|Concept:||8||Historical figure: Nice. People appreciate those types of things, and, although I haven't seen VFH in a long time, I think that those have a much better chance of getting featured.|
|Prose and formatting:||6||You have some cleanup to do in terms of spelling and grammar, mostly at the beginning of the article.|
|Images:||9||I loved the pictures.|
|Final Score:||38.5||Definitely a piece of work you have here. I would clean it up a bit, though. Keep in mind that we already don't care about Charles III. Saying in the article that we don't care is cringe-worthy. Nice article, DJ! I will occasionally check my talk page for you! Keep up the good work, my friend.|
|Reviewer:||• <-> Feb 6 (13:54)|
<ref>tags exist, but no
<references/>tag was found