Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Castlevania

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Castlevania

- Ironfist 01:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	3	Boring. A harsh word to summarise it with, but that's being brutally honest on a day where I am honestly brutal. I like to think of the articles about videogames and the like as an actual review from a journalist who likes a comedic approach to his words (say like, Charlie Brooker, the demi-god). However, this article is more like listening to my "I'm funny, aren't I, Nephew?" auntie talk about a film she watched one night, but slept through most of it. However, that kind of style can still be humourous as an Uncyclopedia article, like reading from a warmonger's account of a drunken narration of My Little Pony, but it's clearly not your best skill. It's very short, it's a list of headlines followed by minisicule content (in fact, I think I remember seeing more headlines than words),
Concept:	4	At least it's a topic that deserves an article, it's not something taboo like an article on 'old men having gay sex!!!', but the execution of the concept left so much to be desired. As I mentioned in humour, the kind of review you gave is somewhat acceptable as a style, but it's not good enough on your part. You'll have to think up of a lot more to conceive a decent concept for your article.
Prose and formatting:	2	The text is badly arranged and not even sufficient. You tried to give a summary of the three games in the series, but due to having near to nothing to say about them, you amassed more headlines than Iraq can stockpile nukes, and compiled fewer words than Russia can supply peace treaties. Get rid of the headlines and pointless sections and garner a reveiw of the whole series in one go if you don't even have much to say about them (or much time to write until you need to say "well I've finished this article! Time to go play xbawkz").
Images:	5	Not too bad, but far and wide from good enough. The Crotchula image (and caption) would be the only commendable picture, and the picture of Belmont eases some familiarity of Castlevania into the article (but nothing more, it's not there for comedy purposes, surely) and the third picture of Disneyland is about as out of place as an elephant in a home for injured felines. Bearing in mind to supply three images, was at least insightful on your behalf. I would suggest getting rid of the third image and replace it with something that actually has something to do with Castlevania, perhaps an in-game image that's purportudely humourous?
Miscellaneous:	2	At least add a "Wikipedia also has an article on this" to banish naivity of non-Castlevania fans? There is very little that is done about trying to hook in as many readers as possible. Not everyone has played Castlevania.
Final Score:	16	I will plead ignorance to the Castlevania series; I've never played them. But it also feels like you've never played them either. If you wish to make this a decent article, I would suggest you listen to my comments and edit Castlevania.
Reviewer:	--Nachlader~ 11:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)