Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Destroy All Humans (2nd review)
Destroy All Humans [edit source]
The second review, after I renovated the article. --SWJS: The All Knowing Destroy All Humans! Nerd(Cortex Scan) 04:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Everyone can relax Chief is here. --ChiefjusticeDS 17:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
| Humour: | 4 | OK, as I see it your humour is in need of work, you have followed POTR's advice generally and made some improvements. However there are still a couple of issues that I see here. Firstly rewrite the story section as it is not funny and very confused. If you are going to satirise the game and ape Wikipedia's style it needs to be a reasonable satire. People who come to read this article are looking for a satire of a popular video game, not a made up story with characters from a game they quite liked. Thus you should write professionally and stick to making jokes about actual game events. Speaking of this section, can we have a couple of jokes that are not regarding rape and penises. Seriously, it is not funny to say "In space the martians stuck to ass raping each other until they crashed into earth". You my friend should have HTBFANJS open as you write, to avoid falling into this trap.
I also see where you are going with the Obama joke, but if you are going to use it then it has to be a staple of the article otherwise it just falls completely flat, it is a relatively good idea but one that requires the correct execution to be amusing. This is true of all your humour, you have good ideas but the execution is missing and I personally found it very hard to laugh at any of this article. It needs serious work. I note from POTR's review that he suggested more of the serious about silly things approach, if you are trying to do this then you have to give it another shot, you can't really be serious about nonsense, so ground the article in the game more. Oh and please be a bit less profane it isn't really that amusing. Misdirection is also not the same thing as random, you do well to follow POTR's advice in the first instance and the preamble to the article is amusing enough, but it hasn't been replicated with such success. Also stop mentioning Jack Nicholson where he doesn't need to be mentioned, yes I am talking about his surprise appearance in the scientology section. |
| Concept: | 5 | You have a flexible concept that could be made into a good article but it needs work. For a start you need to sort a tone for your article. If you are aping wikipedia then you should copy their style as well. Note that profanity puts a very swift end to professionalism so it needs to be carefully considered and not hurled around with such abandon. If I were writing about the game I would stick to satirising what you have to satirise. The link to scientology needs to be at least grounded in the game, rather than simply alluded to, essentially, if scientology is in the game, where is it? what demonstrates it most? You need tonal consistency and an article that is grounded in the existing material, without this the article won't do brilliantly. |
| Prose and formatting: | 8 | This also needs work, POTR already helped you sort the spelling, however you need to sort your grammar as well. Your syntax and sentence division is regularly confused in the article, if you aren't sure what needs changing, run the article through UN:PS. The page is nicely broken up and everything is formatted pretty well. The images are also appropriate for the amount of text, you need to do the least to this. |
| Images: | 7 | The game box image is very good and definitely hauls your image score up a few points, the other pictures are fine and do their job reasonably well, my main issue is with the captions. If you are going to use the Jack Nicholson joke at least consider it's impact on somebody who doesn't find it amusing. The captions on all the pictures, bar the Pox one and the game box, should be revisited, try and compliment your text with an image otherwise the image feels redundant. Try to find a picture that you feel emphasises your point well. |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | My overall grade of the article |
| Final Score: | 30 | You have the foundations of a promising article here that still needs a good amount of work before it can be considered for VFH, remember that the key to having an article recognised is a widespread appeal and a good tone that works with the article. You have started to work on both of these but you aren't there yet, go back and focus on what needs to be improved and do your best to sort it, feel free to ask for help or advice if you are having problems. Good Luck with any editing. |
| Reviewer: | --ChiefjusticeDS 18:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC) | |