Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Hetero (prefix) (2nd review)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Hetero (prefix) [edit source]
Ok, so apparently it's a good article and a great idea but it needs a little extra in order to be featured, according to the VFH votes. Anyone up to helping me with that? :) —talk 16:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Humour: | 7 | Before going into section detail, I'll say broadly that on the whole, what you've got right now is good, but each bit seems a little on the weedy side and could be developed more. Now, onto the breakdown:
|
Concept: | 8 | Love the concept. As I've said, it could use with being drawn out a bit more, but the underlying feeling of what you're going for is very stout. I don't think I can really help you improve this section - you just need to work on what you already have. |
Prose and formatting: | 6 | The prose is very good, on the whole, no major mistakes that I can see anywhere. As I touched on in the humour section, however, it's the formatting that's bringing this down a lot. The shortness of each of the sections, combined with the placement of the pictures is leaving a lot of whitespace everywhere for me (laptop screen), which only emphasises the lack of content. I think this is one of those article where __NOTOC__ comes in handy, and the rest will fix itself just via expansion (I had the same problem with one of my articles, so it does work). Personally, I find "See also" sections unnecessary here, as they don't add any humour to the piece, but that's your call. |
Images: | 7 | The images work in context with the article. There's about the right amount, though when you've expanded a bit you may need a third one to go with the directions section, as it does get a little boring to look at down there. The captions, while not hilariously funny, again work well with the pictures. The formatting ailments I described above should be cured by a pit of expansion on the text, so no worries there. |
Miscellaneous: | 7 | n/a |
Final Score: | 35 | This, I feel, is close to passing VFH. It just needs to carry on what it is doing now over a wider range of jokes and a longer time. Expansion, of course, is what I feel needs to be done to this article, but it's very good as is. Good luck (also, remember, this is a subjective review by someone who doesn't exactly care for repeated gay jokes (vis à vis what I felt was too strong)). |
Reviewer: | –—Hv (talk) 21/12 13:09 |