Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Brain
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Brain[edit source]
I saw a page in dire need of a rewrite, and so I rewrote about 80% of it. Mostly, I just want ideas for improvement and expansion. I know that it's not that great, already. • <Apr 02, 2008 [23:18]>
I think it's good. That "on drugs" picture is gas. Tkotse 14:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Howdy Folks, Sycamore is pissing all over this as I speak--Sycamore (Talk) 17:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Compare it to the old version, old version
| Humour: | 6 | Its go the kind of random humour that’s really good, you also use some pretty good punctuation to get the jokes across, if I was to approach this I would probably go for the whole wishy-washy understanding of Psychology, the brain isn't really understood by anyone, particularly the way actual thought is registered in individuals, this is something you only touch upon. The sections are very bitty, which weakens the humour. I think more of the character of the brain could be expanded, possibly with more of the inconsistency in the actual understanding of the brain within Psychology |
| Concept: | 10 | This is simply a page that has to be on the site, there’s nothing to add. |
| Prose and formatting: | 8 | You've copied the Wiki formatting, something I do, so Kudos to you if you want to be as good a writer as me. However the Wiki page is a beast, you'll have to really wade in for it to work, or (I would suggest) experimenting with a simpler more concise formatting that can fill out as much as you actually want to write and this could look better and more readable. It's not pretty as it is, definitely something to change. I can't fault your grammar or spelling, and as a real plus point you use plenty of good word (lexical) choices that make the article at the level a pretty good read. Your use of punctuation and italics is also good. Quotes are something that seem to work well, there is a bit of a lack currently. Consider the wikipedia template as it makes the topic more accessible |
| Images: | 4 | Images need work, consider formatting them left and right to make the page look better, similarly repetition of images here is not something good- consider stealing from the Psychology page (this would be the first thing I'd do). Final comment, I think more work would not hurt here |
| Miscellaneous: | 8 | I really like the amount of references to particularly good pages like Critique of pure reason and so forth; this is something definitely to head for and add to. Wittgenstein, John Searle (no page for him) would be a good one to bring up, sort of rip the subject of the brain apart whilst taking the piss |
| Final Score: | 36 | I think you're touching on a lot of the more psychological points that I've raised, it's just a question of tightening the formatting and getting your hands dirty. I think the page is well on track, just remember that like ladies some parts can be filled out and some parts should be slim or non existent. I hope i have not benn to harsh, and also that my review is helpful to you.:) |
| Reviewer: | --Sycamore (Talk) 19:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC) | |
- *Drive by reviewing* I personally enjoyed the cauliflower picture. *Vroooom* Mightydandylion
(talk) Fk 23:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
