Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Sycamore/Uncyclopediarewrite
User:Sycamore/Uncyclopediarewrite[edit source]
This re-write probably my most ambitious article, but hopfully I've done alright with it. I've ommited quite a bit, notably Chronarion and Stillwaters. I've gone with the idea that the site is made what it is by many people not just it's founder so I've placed the emphisis on the site rather than notable members of it. I've also tried to cover the highlights as well as the lowlights - this is a little bit on the knife edge throughout and I'm still mixed as some of the stuff although funny is pretty scathing. I've also tried to completly re-imagine a lot of the older stuff like FSM etc so that the fundamentals can be brought into 2009 rather than the randomness of 2005. This is something I think should happen, and hopfully this artlce will be appreciated as embracing the site and its values on humour/humor.
I would appreciate an in-depth review for this one, and maybe a closer eye for detail - I hopeing to get this article to be one of the best and I'm looking to get it to that standard. Thanks for your time:)--Sycamore (Talk) 16:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I did some updating to the review. The author wasn't happy with it, and in hindsight, my review was a mess.--Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 17:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
| Concept: | 8 | Overall, the concept is strong, but a bit in-jokey. First off, the article has a lot of potential that you don't go into. This is a good thing, it makes improving it easier. Some examples of behaviors of less useful activities done by users would include: counting to 1 million, writing articles bitching about the lack of good articles, writing articles bitching about meta-humour, turning every forum post into random babblings, shoehorning boobies into every forum post, inserting images of blue-foot penguin-like birds into every forum post, longing for the good-old-days of 2006-2007, retiring and semi-retiring from uncyclopedia, making fun of e.d., explaining why you yourself are the only person on unclycopedia too busy to write good articles, and writing unfunny drivel while complaining about everyone else writing unfunny drivel. Also, you could go into a history of when uncyclopedia started to take a down-turn. Also, I think, (and this is judging from some 2005 cruft) that at one point, nonsense was encouraged, and soon afterwards, it was discovered that nonsense wasn't funny. I believe this remains a source of trouble for this wiki. (And if I'm not mistaken, at one time, long long ago, someone got into trouble for "deleting someone else's contribution". Meaning, they got in trouble for pruning nonsense, but I digress.) Also, if you can try to inspire people to write better by this article, it will probably help you on VFH, and more than overcome the anti-in-joke-y-ness bias of this wiki. Sort of like the Why?:Do a Pee Review Another issue is the random date of 1842. Oscar Wilde was not born until 1854, a date between 1880-1895 would make more sense. (Wilde was in jail from 1895-1897) |
| Prose and Formatting: | 8 | Nothing wrong with the prose. However, I would get get rid of {{wikipedia}} since it doesn't link to a real article. Also, the nice quotes might look a bit ugly to some people, as they are not in the more common {{q}} format. You might also want to have your footnotes below the external links, I believe that is how wikipedia does it. |
| Images: | 7 | The images go with the article, but nothing stands out. I would probably keep the one with Wilde, and the one with the potato. However, alot of users don't know what the potato symbolizes, its hard to make out the image of the featured templates. If you can find better pics, I might get rid of of the FSM and the bosch pics. I think Mr. T, Chuck Norris, Yoda, and Captain Obvious come up more than the FSM. |
| Humour: | 7.5 | The article is funny over-all, but it could use some work fleshing out, see the concept section. I think the humor falls a bit short of the potential for the current "take" (in the narrow sense) on the article. Also, some turn of phrases might help improve the article, and footnotes are a good place to put some rather outlandish one-liners. You might want to focus more on actual history and less on old fake unNews articles. |
| Improvability Score: | 8 | This is a fairly good article right now, but it could use some more work in the direction its already going. This article could probably get away with being a long article due to its subject matter. |
| Final Score: | 38.5 | I'd say its close to being VFH quality right now. UPDATE a re-reviewed this article, the first time was too harsh, as I'm not used to reviewing good articles and was hesitant to give out high scores. |
| Reviewer: | --Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 16:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC) | |
