Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Why do I need to provide this?/UnNews:Steven Spielberg Presents Stonehenge Apocalypse
User:Why do I need to provide this?/UnNews:Steven Spielberg Presents Stonehenge Apocalypse[edit source]
| Prose | Concept | Humour | Images | Misc | Score | Summary |
Reviewer details:[edit source]
A little bit about the reviewer before we start.
I've watched Doctor Who. And Duel. And Jaws. And Coupling. And The Day of the Triffids mini series produced in the mid 70s.
All of this makes me completely unqualified to review this article. Sucks to be you!
Prose and Formatting:[edit source]
How good does it look and how well does it read? 7.5
Writing style
Straight forward impartial narrator with well characterized quotes from the individuals involved. It reads like a news report, albeit about a tv show.
Spelling
As far as I can tell, none
Grammar
Impeccable grammar.
Layout
Layout is fairly straight forward UnNews layout. Nothing to get your panties in a twist about but also nothing shabby either.
Overall appearance
It looks and reads like a news article. It's exactly what it says on the tin.
Concept[edit source]
How good an idea is behind the article? 7.5
Not much I can say. It's a Sci-Fi-gasm. Given my own love of the genre, I can't help but enjoy the nuance in this that would be missed by any other than a Sci-Fi fan.
Having said that, I don't know how much appeal this could hold for someone who was not a devotee of the genre. Without prior knowledge of who Moffat is, an understanding of the Doctor Who universe and the way he has managed to reinvent the series by basically ignoring most of the previous series, a substantial amount of the humour would be lost.
(Am I the only one who sees a remarkable similarity between the cracks in the universe and the Red Dwarf crew being destroyed by their future selves?)
So, ignoring my own side note, I have had to keep the score down here as it is a limited concept with limited appeal
Humour[edit source]
How funny is it? Why is it funny? How can it be funnier? 6.5
Running straight on from above, most, if not all, of the humour comes from the concept itself. Due to the limited concept it would be hard to get more one-liners in here without it looking too forced.
Images[edit source]
How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting? 7.7
No issues. Well captioned. Good balance between them. Probably would have liked to have seen Dr Who in Stonehenge or an image from the original Stonehenge Apocolypse used instead of the postcard picture, but that's possibly just me. Not a criticism as such, just a potential improvement.
Miscellaneous[edit source]
The article's overall quality - that indefinable something. 8
Honestly I would vote for on VFH as I really enjoyed this, and consider the voting there to be a more personal level. As a reviewer/judge I have tried to be a little more conservative as I'm considering wide spread appeal eater than just the gut feeling.
Final score[edit source]
| Prose 7.5 |
Concept 7.5 |
Humour 6.5 |
Images 7.7 |
Misc 8 |
Final Score 37.2 |
|---|
Summary[edit source]
An overall summation of the article.
Oh, Jeffrey.