Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Final Destination
Final Destination[edit source]
Mostly total overhaul of the Final Destination article, which started off crappy, then became crappier (namely because of me). I've come to apologise. EpicAwesomeness (talk) 16:36, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
| Humour: | 8.5 | I like what I'm seeing here, well so far anyway, some minor issues but mostly sone really funny stuff in this article. I'll go through it in depth now:
Introduction - This section is exremely well done, a carefully executed section of humourous sarcasm to introduce your topic as well over exaggerating it slightly, but enough to produce the humour it needs without overdoing it. The quote used could stant for a little improvement (too long, it could be perhaps made more brief whilst still getting the point across). But all in all a well done introduction. Production - This bit is also well done, combining: Fact, sarcasm, satire and a tiny bit of crudeness towards the producers. I like the way this is structed, and if you came here looking for a way to improve it, sorry to disappoint but I can't it's perfect and any attempts to improve it would probably ruin it. Popularity - I like this section too, but it could use a minor polished in the sentence structuring, what I mean is merge certain sentences together to avoid unfunnyly repeating yourself, otherwisae its like the rest a good combination of truth and humour and not over done in the slightest. Fifth film and Themes - These I think were the downfall of this article and stopped the score edging from 8.5 towards 9.5 or a 10. They need more content and pictures to accompany them. Images give not only a visual representation to the reader but also humour through backing up what the reader sees in the text. Spin-offs - A slight poisoning by being random, but this is largly well done satire. Improving this section is the least of your concerns, improving the above two sections is what you should try and focus on. Your humour is very good, but I can see that it could potentially be better than it is. |
| Concept: | 7 | The concept is reasonbly well developed, but lacks one important point characters. Due to the style of thi acticle, you should have included some information on the characters. Do this and has potential to be really funny. Ive said it before when doing reviews, humour and concept go hand in hand:
Good concept = Funny article Poor concept = Not so funny article. Lastly in the sections I was harasher in with the humour, you need to imprrove the concept of it. So get your concept more detailed and the humour within this article will improve up to a full score! |
| Prose and formatting: | 8 | I like how you used references through your article, they show good formatting skills and understanding of the subject matter. Just a couple of minor fixups needed:
Needs more links - I think it doesn't have enough, don't over link your article and keep them well distributed, but add a few more here and there. And a minor issue what the hell is with the inroduction, the last 4 words got cut off, or has that got something to do with the template? |
| Images: | 7 | The images you've picked are really funny and are of a high quality. But as I said the latter two section need expanding and have images to accompany them. So when expanding them try and find appropraite images to use here. |
| Miscellaneous: | 8 | My overall rating out of 10 |
| Final Score: | 38.5 | So yah, largly a well done article. But it needs a slght amount of work on it, I see a potential feature here if you keep working on it! |
| Reviewer: | ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!)  05:15, July 7, 2011 (UTC)
| |