Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Stratego (n+1)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Stratego [edit source]
Perhaps I was a bit too obstinate regarding "rewrite this completely" criticism, but I'm going to go ahead and ask for a second opinion on this one.
TKFU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 
19:49, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
| Humour: | 9 | The article is well-written and has the right balance of truth and exaggeration to lead to great humor. Very funny and wittily written. As a boy who liked Stratego but also thought it retarded compared to Chess, I really liked the analogy to Chess. The reference to the "Grand Moff" was really funny, and so are the different strategies (like having all of the bombs up front). I also liked the random references to the Hebrew connection. The only reason I am not giving the article a "10" for humor is because I got a bit bogged down in the discussion in each piece and its attributes. Some of it is quite funny, but it is too long a section overall, and loses the tone of the humor. |
| Concept: | 8 | I actually think this is the rare article where the humor and the execution outdid the concept and rose above it. Stratego is not intrinsically funny or ridiculous (like Hungry-Hungry Hippos or Candyland). Yet the article manages to hammer on the aspects of Stratego that make it overly simplistic, like the fact that almost all of the strategy is based on "blindness," and scouts give their identities away simply by moving more than one space at a time. |
| Prose and formatting: | 10 | The prose and formatting are excellent. I don't have any criticism here. |
| Images: | 8 | The images are adequate and illustrative and the fact that they are not ridiculous lends credence to the article as a satire rather than something that is meant to veer into the ridiculous. Still, since none of the images made me laugh out loud, I can't give this a higher rating. |
| Miscellaneous: | 8.8 | I performed the Pee average function |
| Final Score: | 43.8 | This is a very funny article, and I am not sure why someone suggested a full re-write. As I said, the only part I would touch would be the middle - to shorten the descriptions of each piece, or only discuss highlighted pieces. |
| Reviewer: | --Sir NoNamesLeft CUN NotM 21:46, May 8, 2011 (UTC) | |