Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Guy Fawkes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Guy Fawkes[edit source]
El Capitan 08:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sycamore is reviewing your article, in the mean time enjoy Noel with this free coupon--— Sir Sycamore (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
|
For a bumming session with Noel Fielding |
| Humour: | 4 | Pretty flat, you tell it in the first person which detracts form nay sense of 'realism' (as far as that goes on this site). There’s a series of unfunny almost unrelated sections flung together further detracting from any humour value to your article. I would also say that you have zero empathy for the topic of Guy Fawkes- I suggest reading more up on the historical event of him and parodying real events rather than the slap dash effort here. Many old hat jokes like Chuck Norris are very poor additions-these are old jokes on the site that have long ceased to be funny, furthermore if writing about a British Topic I would say keeping more focus in terms of relevance will add to the humour factor, this is covered more in HTBFANJS |
| Concept: | 8 | Guy Fawkes is the successful failure and an ideal candidate for a parody- a poor handling of him here though |
| Prose and formatting: | 3 | Brief terse sections with little if any humour, some more complex lexical choice hampered by lack of humour. Many sections that have little content and make your article look about 25% complete. A review should cover an article that has a little more substance. You also use 'Guy' which is incorrect; it should read more like '.Fawkes was a Jacobi shite'. No links, which give the article a distinctly poor look in comparison, tot the best article on the site. Many errors including i instead of I, or tacked on bits like ‘Famous quotes’ etc- these are things to remove for a VFH quality piece or even for just a good article |
| Images: | 3 | Only two, the Chuck Norris one should probably go. The One at the top add little humour value-I would suggest trawling the search engines for a funnier picture, or you could go to here and get one made for you |
| Miscellaneous: | 4 | Its not really hitting the mark. Writing a great article about Guy Fawkes you will have solid VFH piece. Detail is key here and there is just not enough to have a good article here-I can only suggest having a read over our Best of to steal certain formatting tips and see the general standard of what’s looked for:Uncyclopedia:Best of |
| Final Score: | 22 | I would suggest taking it back to the beginning here, not to be overly harsh, its just hat this is not the best handling of the topic, which is a very good one |
| Reviewer: | --— Sir Sycamore (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC) | |