Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Firefly (2nd review)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Firefly [edit source]
Before I fix it up too much, I'd like a second review on this, so that I can incorporate both suggestions. 
Sir MacMania GUN— 00:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm here.--ChiefjusticeDS 06:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
| Humour: | 7 | I personally, enjoyed the humour in your article. It is intelligent and well written for the most part and kept me amused throughout. I would point you in direction of a couple of problems however. I tend to be an advocate for accessibility in articles, and today is absolutely no exception. While I do get the use of the chinese characters, I still think it strays too close to in-joke territory to be appropriate. You have to consider the article as though you are not totally familiar with the subject matter, a few of your jokes have the potential to be inaccessible to those who are relative newcomers. While a lack of jokes is nothing close to being a problem you should be wary of saturating a section with them. This can lead to jokes making up more of a section than the actual information, this isn't a serious problem, but you should be aware of where you come very close. If you do decide to trim the sections down slightly then I would recommend using HTBFANJS and going through the sections and keeping only what you see as being the very best material.
The section on the crew members is also pretty good, my recommendation here would be to try and incorporate some of your amusing summaries into character's actions later in the article, perhaps in the episode table, as I really enjoyed them and was thus disappointed to find that they had limited application later on. You could make a pretty convincing case for giving you a higher score for this section, but I think the unrealised potential you have built up for the humour means a lower mark is required. |
| Concept: | 9 | The concept is excellent and I'm pleased to see you moving away from the random and confused style that so frequently dominates this type of article. Your encyclopaedic tone is good, but you need to take another careful look through the article as you slip from it a couple of times. In this case you should avoid colloquialisms or casual expressions that express some kind of opinion. It is a shame to lose tonal consistency, especially when you have set such an excellent tone already. Just try to weed out this final problem. |
| Prose and formatting: | 7 | Right, you have a few problems here, your prose are, as usual of a pretty high standard, however your syntax does become confused a couple of times and your sentence division isn't perfect. However these problems do not effect the enjoyment of the article and you shouldn't be too concerned. A quick proofread should solve any problems there. More important that your spelling and grammar is your positioning of sections, an article's contents should be immediately obvious from looking at the contents, however I was confused to find the details on format and design in what I had assumed was the Character section. If these items are integral to this section then consider transferring them to the bottom and putting the villains info directly beneath the passenger details. Your images are plentiful and break the text nicely, so less problems there. Your formatting does leave something to be desired, I would consider making the first one a bit larger and placing an image in the production section rather than just the templates, the reason for this is that the image of the ship is right on top of another image, you could space these out a bit more. |
| Images: | 9 | The images themselves are fine, and I wouldn't change any of them. The captions are appropriate and the recurring joke works nicely. The formatting is the only issue, unfortunately I tend to say that an image score of 10 is not appropriate if marks are lost for image formatting, thus your score here. |
| Miscellaneous: | 8 | My overall grade of the article |
| Final Score: | 40 | This is well up to the standard I have come to expect of you and you should be pleased with what you have done so far. There are a few problems to iron out before this article can become even better. Focus on these and you will have a truly excellent piece of work here. Good luck editing. |
| Reviewer: | --ChiefjusticeDS 20:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |
Whoops, sorry about the section orders. Apparently Uncyc originally aired the sections out of order. Fixing. Sir MacMania GUN— 21:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Was that the point? Or just an amusing parallel? --ChiefjusticeDS 21:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)