Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Blank hole

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Blank hole

Decided to give it a go - the article has a lot of stuff I like myself, and part of it was written in a near-psychotic frenzy (nothing like bat fuck insane though - don't expect much on that front). I'd like to know if such a frenzy is a good thing.

Style  Guide 09:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	4	I'll admit, I didn't laugh as much as I expected to. Which is to say, I didn't laugh. I cracked a smile a few times, but that was about it. Excuse my brutal honesty. Let's take a deeper look. Intro - Yikes. Two lines are not enough. When I hit the main article, I know so little about what blank holes are. That's what the intro is for. It tells the reader exactly what you will be talking about. Add at least two more sentences to flesh out the blank hole definition. Hystery - First off, the title. It's spelled "history." Bringing hysteria into history happens on its own and one doesn't need a ridiculous title to help it along. Second, you have three mini-sections. They are not helping, especially since they are all about the same topic. Get rid of the headings and coalesce the sections into a big conglomerate. And yes, I like big words. Properties - This should be the intro. It is the best part of the article. It tells us exactly what blank holes are.
Concept:	6	When I saw the title, I got rather eager to read it. I didn't know what blank holes would be. In the opening paragraph, you define them as space-time continuum aberrations that do whatever they want. But your execution is flawed. If blank holes do whatever they want, give them a little personality. The only thing we can interact with is the scientist, and he's a flat character.
Prose and formatting:	5	The formatting is off. There are too many breaks and in all the wrong places. Your prose could use a little work, too. You need to make
Images:	6	The images themselves aren't all bad, but what kills it is where you put them. They just totally break up the prose. Try removing an image, too.
Miscellaneous:	4	The references, ARGH, the references! The worst part of the article by far. There are WAY too many of them. And the thing is, they would be fine if you integrated them into the article. Ditch the references and just write them right next to the previous sentence.
Final Score:	25	Amid the darkness that is this article, there is a tiny flickering hope of the concept. If this is tidied up a lot, it may become a decent article. ... Ouch. Sorry. But that's what I think.
Reviewer:	• • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 15:46, Sep 26