Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Dust bunnies
Dust bunnies[edit source]
Lollage Man 12:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm a noob, and I have less IQ than a carrot (carrots have 4 IQ points) so be nice
This is my first article as well so, yes, I am very extremely inexperienced. GIVE ME HELP!... plz?
| Humour: | 4 | OK, I'll be gentle here, because you have made a genuine attempt at creating an Uncyclopedia article, and have also submitted it for review. That shows dilligence and intelligence, and, at the heart, what you have written is a potential germ that needs a bit of a shove in the right direction to become something worth treasuring. Many noob artciles will immediately get pointed at UN:HTBFANJS, but what you have done is better than that (but hey, it's worth giving it another look) and you should also have a look at those articles we Uncyclopedians think are really good. Some of them will make you say "WTF?", but others will probably give you a good shove in the right direction.
At the heart, what the site wants to do is to parody sites such as Wikipedia. Some of our best articles take a Wiki article and twist it almost to breaking. They are encyclopaedic and authoritive, but also wrong and hilarious. Others twist the concept even further, or seek to present encyclopedia articles as if delivered by someone with a particular agenda. To me, it seems that you're aiming straight down the line with this one, and that is no bad thing, but if you are playing the straight card, take a look the very thing you are parodying. Intro - Ideally should start with "Dust Bunnies are..." or words to that effect. You say "They are the evil spawn of The Dust Bunny", which is self-referential and confusing, but making them out as evil could have legs. Uncyclopedia has around 16 billion articles [1] that say innocuous things are evil, but in this case, I think you are on the right lines. The fluffy v furry debate also has scope, but this doesn't seem to be fleshed out or made funny. Destruction of all things fluffy - The article loses focus now. It's a list, and with few exceptions, lists are bad. "Get off your arse and clean every once an a while" could go somewhere, but eveything after is rather random. History and Sources is just padding - it shows you don't, as yet, have a strong concept. |
| Concept: | 4 | Dust bunnies. Yep, we know what they are, and yes, they probably evil. Evil how? What do they want to achieve? If we leave them unchecked, how will the human race survive? How do they party after midnight? It's an open book for you. Pick a concept, make it sing and you've got something worth loving. |
| Prose and formatting: | 6 | There are some minor niggles with grammar and spelling, but this feels like a work in progress, so I'll be generous. Look at your capital letters... "like beckam" would be better as "like Beckham" (although that's a weak joke) and "Unmistakably" should lose the capital. You love bold text. Learn to love it less. |
| Images: | 0 | Only 1 reason for the score. There ain't none. And the lesson is? |
| Miscellaneous: | 4 | I feel this has heart and some effort has gone into it. Look at previous works, and you could make this into something great. |
| Final Score: | 18 | So often Pee Reviews fall either into the "Tell me how great I am" or "What do I do now?" camp. Yours is in that "I know it's not perfect, buut I want to learn" mould. Evidence suggests that you can and you will. Find someone to adopt you - it could work wonders. |
| Reviewer: | Asahatter (annoy) 23:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | |
- ↑ I exaggerate