Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Ancient Uncyclopedia
Ancient Uncyclopedia[edit source]
Ancient Uncyclopedia Users Manual
Funnybony 
20:22, Mar 14 20:22, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
I shall take a look. 12 hours--
Director
WILL
YOU 333 20:56, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
- I've read this but I'll have towait till tomarrow to finish it.--
Director
WILL
YOU 333 04:57, March 16, 2010 (UTC
| Humour: | 5 | The beginning was really good, as it got me interested, the second one was ok, but the section after that while reading it my interest went slowly down. If this happened to me, it might happen to another user, so follow my advice on how to approve on it
The first thing I like to point out is this article seems more about what people must do during Ancient Uncyclopedia times. The reader would like to know what happened during those times and what did ancient uncyclopedians did back then, not about things they should do. This would make a great UnBook, but since it not an UnBook, it should be more like an encyclopedia article. I also did not like all those quotes in the large section. I thought they were too messy, so it would be best to get rid of them. And for the conclusion, don’t add short list like that because they seem very random, instead make a paragraph about the article in a conclusion matter (that as so gay, but whatever.) |
| Concept: | 5 | The concept is what kills your article. Some parts were pretty good, but others keep this score pretty low. Instead of explaining about Uncyclopedia in ancient times, you make it seem more modern. Instead of Ancient Uncyclopedia being used by computers, maybe it was used by books, wall paint, or ancient carvings. You also use too much swearing, although it was shorted to BS. Even though using it can make an article funnier, too much swearing can really downgrade a article. Thirdly, this seems more as preaching, and some old rules that they use to follow during ancient Uncyclopedia times. When people read the title, they think of Uncyclopedia being used in Ancient times, not something people needed to follow. And you put down FA and telling what it means later in the article. Don’t do that. Because some users (especially new ones) might not know what that means, I didn’t know what it meant until I read further down. It would be better to first put down the word and then put the abbreviation beside it in parentheses, ‘’’THEN’’’ use the abbreviation throughout the article. |
| Prose and formatting: | 8 | there isn’t any spelling errors, but for future reference, refrain from using zeros to spell noobs, as that makes the article look so unprofessional and noobish. And for the large section, you use italics on every one of the sentences. For future references, you do not need to do that if you have the bold words up. It kind of makes the article look very messy. And this type of writing and formatting is usually founded in Unbooks and UnScripts, so you either move this to the UnBooks and Unscripts or change the formatting of it. Also I like to point out something you should fix.
|
| Images: | 6 | Some of the images are ok, others are iffy. The first one I liked the best, as it helps support your article well. The second one was ok, but it looks too modern to be an ancient Lord, maybe photochopping it on the body of a king would make it look almost the same but keeping up with the ancient context. The third image is iffy. I’m going to let your own judgment decide on this one. The fourth one is the one I think isn’t necessary. You made the doctor into a clown, even though I don’t care about it, it kind of looks stupid. Maybe if you found a clown dressed like a doctor it would look a whole lot better. |
| Miscellaneous: | 5 | My overall grade of this article |
| Final Score: | 29 | It isn’t to bad, but it could be better. Just follow my advice and get someone else’s opinion if you didn’t think this review was good enough. If you have any questions just go to my talk page. Good Luck! Cheers |
| Reviewer: | --DirectorWILLYOU 333 02:51, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
| |