Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Central Processing Unit
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Central Processing Unit[edit source]
This is one of those boring, never written (or always deletable) vital articles I wrote, then submitted for credit toward a new pair of Speedos from Guildy's Underwear Shop. Comments for further improvement welcomed. --T. (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
| Humour: | 5 | Right now, the article is pretty rough. From what I can gather, there are two main problems: first, you deviate from your main subject too much. I'm not sure what Cuisine and Devon Aoki have to do with a central processing unit, and I got the feeling while I was reading this that it was just a bunch of ideas thrown in at random. I'd recommend you look over this article a second time and make sure that you stay on topic- avoid references to outside things and pictures that have little or nothing to do with CPUs. Second, the article is a little too short. I'd recommend you expand it a bit with some changes to your concept (see below). |
| Concept: | 5.5 | While it's good to have an article on CPUs, the problem with the concept is that, as stated above, it's much too random. The problem is that you don't have a solid direction to take your article in. A few ideas would to be about computer processors only, or maybe treat it is as a subsection of EDSAC. Whatever the case, make sure you keep your article in 1st person perspective I.E. no "We" or "You" mentions. The best way to do it is with a straightfoward encyclopedic tone. |
| Prose and formatting: | 6.5 | The images that you're using are too big for the rest of your article. I'd recommend reducing the size of them, because your first one overlaps into two seperate sections. Once you've got that taken care of, make sure you change your article so that it's entirely in 3rd person; there were a few minor slip-ups here and there. Other than that, your P&F is mostly good. |
| Images: | 5 | They fit into each section well, but like i've stated above, they're pretty random because you don't have a central theme. I'd recommend getting rid of your first 2 images, and possibly keep the third one. Make sure your images are computer related, such as the lead one for the EDSAC article or a picture of an advanced calculator. An article like this could have some really hilarious images if you put some work in them. |
| Miscellaneous: | 5 | My overall grade of the article. |
| Final Score: | 27 | The main problem with the article is that you don't have a single, solid, concept; it mostly seems like a bunch of random items and people under the article title. To recap, i'd recommend that you rewrite this so that it sounds more like an article on computers, with some information and parody mixed together regarding earlier version, computers in the 90s, and modern day ones. I'm glad that this article has been made, but it's not too good right now.
Bottom Line: Change your style so that it sounds more like a computer article and expand. Good luck! =) |
| Reviewer: | Saberwolf116 01:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC) | |
- Thanks. I actually don't do random, so your perception is interesting. :) This article was intended to sketch the evolution of the processor from a food processor, to what we understand as a processor in the current use, to its future redesign. But apparently it isn't well communicated, or it's just too abstract of a jump... Dunno. Something to think about... --T. (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Glad you enjoyed it. Also, this was my 59th in-depth review, which is my favorite number. That's good luck for your article, or something. Saberwolf116 01:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)