Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Dragon

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Dragon

Chaoarren Chaohead (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's my review. I don't know if it's any good since I've never done this before, but nobody else did one so I thought I should step in. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia 02:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Humour:	4.5	Not particularly successful. I can tell it's trying to be funny, but it falls short: Says many things that seem like plain facts, such as 'Dragons come in many different shapes, sizes and sexualities.' from the intro. I suggest not naming properties of dragons unless you can somehow show that there is something unexpected or ridiculous about them. Makes apparent criticisms of dragons without managing to make it humorous, such as 'Dragons are an endangered and unique species of aborted bastard babies from an orgy of eagles, leopards, and snakes.' from the second section. The main jokes in this sentence, to me, seem to be the phrase 'aborted bastard babies' and possibly also the animals that supposedly combined to form dragons; neither of these work, as the first reads like someone's personal dislike of dragons and the second is another example of a plain fact. Though this is not Wikipedia and our articles are allowed to express points of view, in this case I would suggest trying to write somewhat more neutrally. Criticises not only the subject, but the reader: 'Now, if you still don't know what a dragon is by now, then you obviously haven't been paying attention, which offends me most entirely and it is recommended that you get your ass off your couch and go anywhere with a geek who plays Dungeons and Dragons, World of Warcraft, Final Fantasy XI, or another RPG/Fantasy game, as well as hiding somewhere very far away where I cannot find you.', once again from the second section. This strategy rarely works and I would suggest simply avoiding all such wording and focusing on the subject rather than the reader. Anthropomorphises: 'Female dragons (Single Dragoness) are also known to kill people when their "time of the month" arrives', again from the second section. This sometimes works, but in this article it comes off as yet another form of plain facts. Random sorts of things that don't fit with anything: 'Green dragons are also very picky about grammar and absolutely hate run-on sentences.' from the section 'Green dragon', 'In what way does a Dragon resemble a worm? Or was it wyrm? Or wurm? Or wyvern? Gah, I don't know, but those titles sound ridiculous. It's like comparing Chuck Norris to the second strongest man on earth. Now that's ridiculously stupid. There's eons between the two. Unless he's fighting Tony Jaa. That would be a close one. But the point is that wurm is NOT a honorific title! It's just stupid!' from the section Smaug. Try to avoid random statements and rambling sentences like these; if you can't see how it relates to the material in the rest of the paragraph or how it's funny, try leaving it out. List of dragons is rather long. I removed the section on brown dragons as Spike did on Wikia for much the same reason - it tried to be funny by talking about poop, which does not work if all you do is talk about poop. I worry that readers will lose interest with such a long list, and I would suggest removing the less notable ones as well as rewriting the info about them as described above. I haven't gone into details of everything because the whole article has basically the same problems.
Concept:	6	The concept of an article about dragons is a good one, but it needs more than that and it hasn't got it. I'm not really sure how to explain this any better.
Prose and formatting:	7	The formatting seems fine except that some section headers are pushed around by images; this could be easily fixed with uses of {{clear}}. The grammar, and to a lesser extent the writing style, needs a noticeable amount of work in spots. Example: 'The US dealed with dragons [...]' when it should be 'dealt'. This is not very frequent though.
Images:	7	Has a good number of images that relate to the topic, which is why I gave a 7; that said, the captions have the same issues described under 'humour'.
Miscellaneous:	6.1	Averaged.
Final Score:	30.6	This has some potential and is not deleteworthy, but it is also definitely not ready for VFH until it gets a lot more help.
Reviewer:	– Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia 02:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)