Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/HowTo:Beat jet lag
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
HowTo:Beat jet lag[edit source]
Seeking improvement. Written while under JL.
If no one takes this by the time I wake up tomorrow, I'll review it. Until then however I do not tag this in my name in order to prevent smiting from the banning gods!-- 05:03, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
Humour: | 3.5 | At some points, this article is funny, and I like it. At many times, though, it falls short because of a variety of issues. Also, you need to focus more on your stated concept in the beginning or remove the statement that states that concept; it currently is quite confusing. And now, an indepth analysis:
|
Concept: | 6 | Pretty good concept, but it has a few execution problems. See humor. I put all of my comment for concept elsewhere, but I do give concept its own score. |
Prose and formatting: | 5 | So, I have quite a few suggestions for improvement here. It wasn't terrible, but there was quite a bit wrong. Here's the break down:
|
Images: | 7 | In my reviews, a 7 for images means "Good images, OK captions". I think the best image is the "double yourself" one, and I also like the one with the brain. But anyway, about captions. I feel like there was some missed potential here. For example, in the "Pictorial history of jet lag causing time-machines" section, you put in what they looked like, but I felt a good caption would have helped you satirize them a bit better. I think the "fake informal" thing should go in the section header and the caption should be humorous. The caption in the "time travel donut" one would have been better if you had mentioned that in the article to me. For the last one, I feel like you could have been better off without saying "There are no bells"- especially since those are clocks, not bells ;). |
Miscellaneous: | 5 | Overall score. |
Final Score: | 26.5 | Now, don't be sad about this orange/yellow numbers. They mean that area needs work, but they don't mean "it's irredeemable". I feel like this could really benefit from some quite minor things, but it needs some major stuff too. I realize this review is "mess of ideas" and could be expressed a lot better, and I apologize if it makes no sense; it's 4 in the morning. And I actually think is a bit too short and not as good as my usual ones; but I'm sort of in a rush, so forgive me. So, the my main thoughts are:
Input those changes, and this will be quite a bit better. Good luck. |
Reviewer: | -- | 09:24, May 9, 2010 (UTC)