Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Balloon Animals (2nd Review)

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Balloon Animals

I am looking for an in-depth review this time please ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 01:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	5	Predictable is the word that best describes this article. In no way is it bad nor boring but its predictable. Except for a few fun facts as how the different organisms and animals mate and live the article is quite straight forward. I don't blame you for this because when writing about evolution it isnt easy to diverge from reality. You follow the different steps of evolution qutie accurately and I would have probably done the same. Still though, that makes for a quite predictable and unexciting article. Its enjoyable but not more and I honestly don't think it could become a "classic" nor hysterically funny article. On the other hand its original in its thoughts and facts and didn't feel like a waste of my time =) Considering all this I cna only give a 5 because even if its good it doesn't feel (with this concept at least) that it can ever amount to more.
Concept:	7	As I previously said, the concept is original and interesting but its lacking in surprise. I still give you a 7 because that is probably how I would have written an article about ballon animals. Even though it just is a copy of ordinary evolution transformed and arranged to fit ballon animals its entertaining and feels quite serious. All articles on uncyclopedia can't be funny crazy stories about totally made up events and people. There should be a good amount of articles excempt of satirical obvious jokes; articles that simply describe things in a humourous way. I therefore hope this is what you aimed for since its at least what it feels like - a descriptive humourous article. Not feature worthy in my opinion, but satisfying and enjoyable.
Prose and formatting:	4	Well it sure seems like you and I often get lower scores on the prose. There is nothing wrong with your formatting and the article looks just fine. But! The prose... aouch. I.e you write twice "often times" which really doesn't sound like correct english to me (ex: your last sentence). You also have two sentences where you use the ver "were" twice in the same sentence; which makes them sound weird. Other sentences are simply way too long. To cite but one example : Fragmentation would then occur, this is where the bits of rubber would regrow back into a sphere, encompassing another water molecule in the process and therefore becoming several different beings. In this condition, they would never die, and pissed the plants off. Try adding more punctuation and choosing your commas more wisely. Its a bit weird for me to comment on your prose since I often get these comments myself but I can still say that when I read this many sentences were hard to read. Others felt just plain wrong and only a few flowed nicely. I do have a few ideas for some and if you want I can edit some a bit (not changing the content of course, just rephrasing them). My strongest recommendation though is that you ask some experienced native english speaker to help you out. I know for a fact Nachlader and DrStrange are quite impressive.
Images:	8	Good amount of images. I especially appreciated 3 of them (the fish, the jurassic park and the monkey picture). The microorganism picture didnt feel out of context and is ok but nboth the image and comment could perhaps be replaced by something even funnier.
Miscellaneous:	2	+2 because ballons are awesome. Once you pop you can't stop!
Final Score:	26	In conslusion. An interesting piece of literature. Quite entertaining. I unfortunately think though that it might not achieve great heights; simply because of its predictable concept and flow. But do not despair. If eveyrthing we always did was a great and a huge success nothing would ever be great - there is no greatness without at least a few moments of mediocracy.
Reviewer:	--Kit talk 10:30 26 February