Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/12th century

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

12th century

Drako784 15:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Originally written by me three years ago. I've tried to update it and refine it a little, but it still needs a lot of work. Suggestions and criticisms are greatly appreciated.

I'll try to get this tonight. --Mnbvcxz 03:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Concept:	3	The subject matter might be funny, but your take on it is way too random. Generally, the closer something is to the truth, the more funny it is. This site is about satire, not randomness. Now to be far, there was a time, (2005, maybe into early 2006) in which nonsense was tolerated, but this site was moved away from that, mainly because nonsense in unfunny, especially in large doses. We have much more nonsense than we need in the form of legacy articles in ip written crap. If want to improve this article, you'll need to actually make fun of the 12 century, specifically, making fun of the events of the 12th century. The article Dark Ages is a good example of how to do that. You'll probably need to do some research on the subject, at least read the wikipedia article on that subject. Right now, you probably don't have much keepable material.
Prose and Formatting:	6	Overall, the formatting isn't in line with wiki standards, but you have the following issues: Too many lists. Lists of made up events or random people are not funny. As a rule, paragraph form is always preferred over lists whenever it is possible. Lists are generally for "data dumps", and the reader generally doesn't want to hear random data. Now, there are times when you should use a list. For example, the "see also" links list should be in all articles, except when it can't be made to work in articles that look like that they're about. As a rule, if you think a list can be turned into a paragraph without losing quality do it. Too many short paragraphs in a row Try to combine your paragraphs. If you find that can't combine a series of short paragraphs, that is oftentimes a sign that your covering the material too fast. On a similar note, you have too many headers for the length of text toward the bottom. You might want to consider merging sections or demoting sections to sub sections. If you find that you can't do that, then you're probably covering the material too fast. If your planning on adding more material, don't worry too much about header frequency until you're done adding the prose. Too many templates at the top. You might want to consider getting rid of one, or moving them toward the bottom of your article. A couple of red links. Red links look like formatting errors to experienced readers and make your article look like it isn't cleaned-up.
Images:	4	You have only one image, and it is only marginally related to your article. It might be funny in other contexts, but its stupid in the context. I can't really give you any specific suggestions for a better image right now, but probably something from the era would work. Artwork in western Europe still had a cartoon-y look to it at the time, which is inherently funny. I'd advise checking wiki commons for some good pics.
Humour:	3	Your article is giving off the feeling that its relying on crassness instead of humor to be funny. Now, there is a place for vulgarity, but you shouldn't use vulgarity in and of itself as the source of humor for your article. (You might be able to get away with it on a vulgar topic, but even then, it comes off as best cliche.) Also, don't insert the names of random celebrities into your article, it makes it come across as memey.
Improvability Score:	3	this might be a bit hard to write. You'll need to learn about the subject before you satirize it, and that might be alot of work. Generally its easier to write about what you know. In addition, this sort of article has the potential to turn into a long rambling article, so if you that it feels listy, you might want to reconsider what your underlying concept. That risk isn't overwhelming, but its still there. That being said, if you have enough historical knowledge, or are willing to put forth the effort, I'd say go ahead and try to improve this article. This article is hard in the sense that its going to require research or at least knowledge, and not comedic "black magic" to fix it.
Final Score:	19	This would be a major rewrite, and your probably going to spend a while on wikipedia getting the base material to fix it. But, I think it can be a good article.
Reviewer:	--Mnbvcxz 04:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

List of hints for writing your article:

• Beat-with-a-sledgehammer type articles generally aren't funny. By "beating with a sledgehammer", I mean insulting the subject matter without an wit or subtlety. Generally, you should satirize the subject matter: "praise" articles never work. However, if you attack the article too much, you wind up sounding overly-dramatic. Also, try to be specific in your jabs at the subject, if tell the reader why the subject sucks, you don't need to tell the reader that it sucks. Generally, writing the article from the perspective of a "friend" of the subject matter who insults the subject accidentally works, but it might be a bit over-used.
• Don't try to cover too much material too fast. This sort of article runs the risk of turning into a "data dump" or a hodgepodge of unrelated sections.
• Whenever you make any change or edit, ask yourself if your improving the overall quality of the article or not. Don't add one-liners that are funny in themselves or --Mnbvcxz 04:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)