Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Gregor Mendel
Gregor Mendel[edit source]
blarg4 01:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC) User:POTR/Template:PEEing
| Prose and Formatting: The writing style, spelling, grammar, layout and overall appearance. |
6 | There is nothing really exciting about the format on this. It's a bog standard, average layout. It doesn't need to be much more layout wise, though. You've avoided some of the bigger traps - ie lead in quotes, bad picture positioning - but there is nothing overly exciting.
I don't know what you've done with the quote at the end, but whatever it is, change it to {cquote}. Spelling is fine. Grammar is okay, if a little lazy. The major major issue I have is the writing style. This starts off trying to be encyclopeadic, but it falls well short not that long into it. Despite any humour or concept reservations I might have (see below) this would be dramatically improved with a "straight man" technique. (See HTBFANJS if you need more of humour techniques.) |
| Concept: How good an idea is behind the article? |
5 | Concept has me a little divided. I don't like having crass humour as a major driver of an article, however here you have a Priest who is obsessed with procreation - to not have this concept seems to be missing the absurdity in the reality.
I can only give a score as high for concept as I would for humour given the above then. This means if the humour improves, then the concept improves. |
| Humour: How funny is it? Why is it funny? How can it be funnier? |
5 | There are a few good lines in here. I will always automatically drop a score as soon as the word rape is mentioned in an article as a source of humour. Perversion is funny, homosexuality can be funny, but sexual assault loses me.
Also while you have a good angle coming from the perverted aspect, there is a lack of comedic science here. The line relating to sometimes the crackhead is right is the highlight of the article. More of this please! |
| Images: How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting? |
7 | I like the images. The first is a fantastic visual lead-in, but I'd suggest change it so that the text below the illustration is gone. It is more impressive when it's just your text.
The bee... Doesn't add, but doesn't take away. Given that it is a scientific concept, can we have a more sciencey image? Like a diagram of a molecule or a dana structure. I don't know what you would comment on it with, but you need to bring it back to what he was known for along the way. The priest image is brilliant, but I hate text in images, unless it is a text image (see the why_blink.gif in my sig for an example of a text image - although in this case used wildly out of context.) |
| Miscellaneous: The article's overall quality - that indefinable something. |
3 | I've left this until the end because I have been ignoring it's existence in order to be as helpful and as useful as I can be, but I've held out on this enough. What the sweet, hairy, horny, ugly, smelly, hell on wheels with a sex toy embedded in his eye is the whole Foo fighters section. Worse then dull, it's like trying to clean up a gas station with a flame thrower. No, never, niet, nil!
I'm known for my subtlety. |
| Final Score: How much can it be improved and what are the most important areas to work on. |
26 | okay, putting that behind, there is enough to give hope for this article. Keep on working and polishing. If part of it doesn't work perfectly, polish it or chuck it. But it's coming along well. |
| Reviewer: | Pup | |