Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/HowTo:Write an Uncyclopedia article without reading any of the rules or directions or manuals or policies first

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

HowTo:Write an Uncyclopedia article without reading any of the rules or directions or manuals or policies first

Yeah, yeah, I'm so nice... I go and complain about the queue length and then instead of reviewing something, add something to the queue. Because that's not hypocritical at all...

But seriously, I've rather rewritten this since it was last reviewed, so now I'm wondering how it sits currently. While I am well aware that the concept is highly cliché, among other things, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be repeated that it's horrid, mind.

And should I add something about templates? I'm starting to think the bad article howto makes a good point about that. Hmm... ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101014 - 20:24 (UTC)

Here's my review: I saw a red link in there. OK, other than that it's perfect, so you get a 49 out of 50. Feature it already so we can all laugh and readers can learn something. Aleister 14:54 13 12

But Aleister, that red link was intentional! Does it really work that badly? 1234 ~ 15:46, 13 December 2010

You are now down to 48 out of 50 on my pee review, for creating an intentional red link. I just don't like red-links, is all, but it doesn't do anything badly. And you don't have a discussion page, which creates another red link on top the page, so let's make that a 47 score. Red Aleister 17:25 13 12

So... besides the red links, what do you think? I mean, really think? 1234 ~ 01:45, 14 December 2010

Unless Aleister is seriously reviewing this (lol), I'll get it. --Black Flamingo 18:40, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Eh, just commenting, it would seem. But that I can't even get a helpful comment out of him? Blargle... anyhow, thanks, flamingo. 1234 ~ 18:44, 14 December 2010

Humour:	6	Ok, this has been a really tough one to review. While the article is well written and quite funny in places, it's riddled with conceptual problems, in my opinion, and most of these problems lie at the very core of the article in a way that will make them very difficult to fix. I'll be focussing on this later in the Concept section, for now, I'll take a look at your humour. So let's start at the top. The opening quotes don't really work, as is usually the case for opening quotes. These ones in particular are just too random and silly and unencyclopaedic. I can't really figure out what's supposed to be funny about either. I'd get rid of them if I were you, especially since I think the article could use a bit more brevity. In the intro, you contradict yourself when you say those who have "gone on to bigger and better things" don't care to help new users. It doesn't really make sense because A. it's not true and B. you say the exact opposite in the footnotes. It would make more sense if you just answered the question by saying "Yes they do, but such things aren't for you; you're an adventurer." I think this is another issue with your core concept; it's difficult to stay focussed on, and because it's so nonsensical you can easily end up making massive contradictions. A problem I've noticed with a lot of articles like this is that they tend to try too hard to refer to every facet of Uncyc, even if the writer doesn't really have anything to say about them. A good example of this in here is the part in Before you Start where you recommend the reader does not join the order. This really niggled at me; once again I don't think it makes sense, as everyone automatically joins the order when they sign up. The whole sentence just feels like padding to me. Don't worry too much about doing this, if you're going to satirise Uncyc itself, make sure what you're saying is true and relevant to the subject matter. As the article reaches its half way point I think this becomes quite a large problem. You have sections on all the conventions, such as Links, Quotes and Images to name three. What's wrong here is that the article stops being a guide on how to be ignorant and starts offering what sounds like advice on how to write noob articles. For most of this section, in fact, you're just explaining how to create standard articles. I appreciate your problem here, it's very hard to write an article which is a guide to writing an article in a wholly ignorant way. But if the writer was truly ignorant, would there even be any pictures? Never mind quotes. And the Links sub-section seems to be more along the lines of "how to write an article in a stupid way" rather than what you claim to be writing about. So to answer your question - no, don't include anything about templates, for exactly these reasons really. Try not to just focus on the Uncyc conventions like this, as it renders the article little more than yet another guide on how not to write for the site. Have a think if there's anything you can actually help a reader with when it comes to writing an article without reading any of the guides. While reading this section I also couldn't help but think that you could do with a few more jokes. You have a lovely writing style and there are a couple of good laughs where you play with language and deconstruct it, but there aren't many actual gags. Take a look at this line for instance, where I felt there was a missed opportunity for a comic twist: "for your content, it would probably be most logical for it to at least somewhat relate [sic] to the name of the page that you are creating, though that may not be entirely necessary, either." This just seems like you're offering the reader genuine advice rather than making a joke. My advice to you would be: never be serious if you can help it. What you could have said here, for example, is; "For your content, it would probably be most logical for it to at least somewhat relate [sic] to the name of the page that you are creating, which is precisely why it should be as unrelated as you can possibly make it." While this isn't hilarious, at least it's a joke, and it makes more sense since this article is supposed to be a guide to how to break/ignore all the guidelines.
Concept:	3	The biggest problem here is that it's an idea that's been done a zillion times before, as I'm sure you've realised since shuffling off your noobish coil. So as far as originality goes, you don't get many points. If this was the only problem, then your excellent use of language would pretty much save it, and it would be funny enough to get over. However, as I've said, this concept is just so flawed. First of all, it's unfocussed. Like I say in humour, about half way through it stops being HowTo:Write an Uncyclopedia article without reading any of the rules or directions or manuals or policies first and becomes HowTo:Write a noob article, or some variation on that. Ordinarily I would just advise you to work on this; to get rid of the irrelevant bits and contradictions to the subject matter, and talk more about what it would actually be like for someone to write an Uncyc article without even knowing what Uncyc is. But there's a further problem that seems to destroy any hope of the article ever achieving such a state, and that problem is that it simply doesn't make sense. None at all. This probably sounds a bit harsh, so I apologise, but also permit me to explain. The whole idea of a guide to writing an article without reading any of the guides is nonsense. Why would such a guide ever exist? What advice could you ever offer somebody on such a subject? To be honest, the only bit that really does make sense is the beginning, where you say "don't read any of the guides", and from there I don't see how the article could be anything more than just "go and get on with it then". Now I know that you address this issue at the end, where you say the reader has failed because this article itself is a guide, but that's not enough to save it (despite the fact that it did make me chuckle, I kind of saw it coming from the first section onwards). I really do not know what you can do to fix this, because as I've said, the problem is with the very foundation of the article; the title itself, even. It is totally up to you, of course, but the options as far as I can see are to work on the other issues and hope no one notices, or change the title and rework the concept a little so it makes more sense. I'll leave it with you.
Prose and formatting:	9	Generally speaking your prose are really good. I've come to really like the way you write articles; the language is very traditional yet fresh and imaginative - like a Yank Clive Barker. Sometimes the fact that it's so imaginative can cause problems, however, such as the following examples... A line that I struggled with was "you will learn it as you go, never mind the frosting that gets in your hair". That's an odd expression; not one I've heard , nor could I find any evidence of it ever being said before when I typed it into Google. I'm not saying you should get rid of it or anything, but you may want to reconsider it as it could be a bit of a stumbling block to readers. I for one couldn't figure out what you meant by it. Perhaps you should try linking it to something more explanatory than that weird Emo article. Another problem with imaginative language is that some of the spelling is equally imaginative to make up for the fact that a lot of the words you use don't actually exist. My case in point; "Uncyclopediac" probably doesn't need an "a" in it, after all the adjective version of encyclopaedia just ends in "ic" to make "encyclopaedic"; this should probably be the same. There was another line that confused me in the intro: "It has all become clear: you have found a new purpose in you life, a light to illuminate your way. To be a part of something larger than you are. To add to the horrible monstrosity, Uncyclopedia". This reads a bit messily. The last few sentences start and end too abruptly, and I had to read it over a few times to get to grips with it. It would work better if you didn't start new sentence there when you list the things new users can do. Maybe just a semicolon or a comma instead.
Images:	6.5	I don't have too much to say here, I think you do a decent job with images. I like the irrelevant theme, although some of the later ones aren't particularly hilarious. The first one of the elephant is good, and I especially like the caption. I think it would look better if you moved the HowTo template somewhere else, so the picture is at the immediate top. Also, could you get rid of the... whatever you call it... the bit of text in the bottom left corner... that thing. I think it's a copyright logo or something.
Miscellaneous:	6	How much good could a good man do if a good man could do good?
Final Score:	30.5	Overall what you have here is a bad idea executed well. It's too self-referential and nonsensical to really work, but you do a truly excellent job at writing it. I just hope you can figure out what to do with it, and that my comments help. A couple more jokes would definitely be a plus, just little things that twist the reader's expectations as I discuss above. But in some ways I can't help but feel that the article is doomed. Sorry. I've been wrong about such things before so ponder it anyway; you may well be able to come up with something. If there's anything I've said here that you want me to explain better, or if you want my opinion on anything I might have missed, please let me know and I'll try to help. I hope the review is ok.
Reviewer:	--Black Flamingo 21:33, December 14, 2010 (UTC)