Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Clean coal

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Clean coal

This is my first new article in ages. I don't know how that's significant to the reviewing process but there it is. --The Acceptable  Cainad  (Fnord) 18:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Aaargh...so sorry about all the delay, I've just had some serious obstructions. It's not excusable, I know. Anyway, I will try my best to get it done, but if someone else feels like doing it in the meantime they can. So, so sorry, man. BlueYonder - CONTACT

I'll give it a try. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 16:26, Dec 10

Humour:	6	Okay before I continue I will have you know this is my first review. So some of the stuff I may say may be absurd or uninformative. Anyway, I think that the humor was pretty good talking about how good it is. But I do feel that maybe you could still do a little more with it (I don't know).
Concept:	8	I do think the idea is really good. Especially in an economic recession, so this passes for me.
Prose and formatting:	6	Not Bad
Images:	7	The images are a tad bland, but I do like the one with McCain and Obama (it's funny).
Miscellaneous:	5	I do feel that the article is too short and maybe can be extended with some more stuff.
Final Score:	32	Not bad, but does need some extending
Reviewer:	PsychotypeD 16:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	5	I think I'll just begin this review with the word "thin" - "thin" as in "paper thin". Why, I don't find myself enjoying an article at all when the humour within is simply paper thin! OK, it's clean coal. Every politician tosses the name around as though it was out there ready to serve its duty already, and although this particular article touches on this point, it hardly elaborates beyond the 2008 US Presidential Election, which is old news as far as reality is concerned. But, then again, hardly any politician out there is actually willing to elaborate on the subjuect, and I guess this is kind of the concept you are playing on.
Concept:	5	This is supposed to be an article about "clean coal". What I see here, though, is an article 50% about the 2008 Election and the other 50% about the actual subject. This leaves the article on a shaky ground and one may find oneself receiving little while there is simply much more expected from it. Granted, even given my qualifications in relevant sciences, I can't tell you much about clean coal either. But, remember, this is Uncyclopedia, not Wikipedia. When you present a subject, there is no need to cover all sides of the facts, since readers here are assumed to use their own discretion at all times. Hence, what you should do is to elaborate on the hypes and vibes about clean coal. Do a bit of research on that sort of things and place them in the article as you see fit so to beef up the article a little. Another thing you can do is what I am going to discuss in the misc. section, so stay put.
Prose and formatting:	8	Prose is one of the few things you have done right here. As I presume, this article is pretty much about the hypes and vibes about clean coal, and, of course, hypes and vibes are all about having a decent selling pitch. I don't mind if you try and be a bit more ironic on the subject, but just make sure you don't over-do it so to wind up derailing the article from its central idea, which is clean coal (or the hypes and vibes thereof). Formatting is fine, too. Just be sure to keep up with the current neatness as you expand the article, though.
Images:	8	For an article of this size you seem to have exerted quite a decent amount of effort into finding relevant images. However, as you expand your article you may wish to add more photos and illustrations to it, but bear in mind that quality is still a priority over quantity.
Miscellaneous:	0	Science is about facts, or more precisely, deducible facts. Instead of leave you to guess what you should do with the article, I'll just offer you a few ideas right off the bat:- You need a table. A big, shiny table with wonderful colours. Divide the table into 3 columns, one listed with questions somewhere along the line of "Is it clean?" or "Is it friendly to puppies?", and the rest two left for ticks and crosses for "clean coal" and "dirty coal" (whatever that means) respectively. Give as many ticks (or "Yes") to "clean coal" as possible and as many crosses (or "No") to "dirty coal". Now there you go: psedo-science made easy!
Final Score:	26	1. Expand the article as I have suggested above, really. 2. Recommend a new Nobel Prize title called "Arm-waving Junk Science" and nominate me for it or simply put me on the one Al Gore has got. No, really!
Reviewer:	The Colonel (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)