Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/HowTo:Write an Uncyclopedia article without reading any of the rules or directions or manuals or policies first...
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
HowTo:Write an Uncyclopedia article without reading any of the rules or directions or manuals or policies first[edit source]
This article sucks. That said, I did a bit of a rewrite based off flamingo's review, and it still sucks. I mean... uh... well, I hear the concept is pretty much a goner, but aside from that, anything to suggest? ~ 
02:58, 12 May 2011
| Humour: | 9 | I think this article is funny. It is funny because it is clever. It is funny because it is self-referencing. It is funny because it is scary. Why is it scary? I have read the article, and looked into the face of the enemy, and the enemy is myself. What I mean to say is that by reading about the things necessary to "not" write a true article, I noted many mistakes that I myself have made in my own articles. And so the article is entertaining and educational (gasp)! I like the gerbil references and the way they start off seeming random, but then add a cohesive element to the article, for example. This is not to say the article's humor is perfect. I would give a "10" for that. I have some suggestions to polish the article into what I believe will be a true gem for those hip enough to get it. And if they don't, well, that's their loss. I am going to cover all of this in the other sections, so don't feel that this short introduction is a cop-out. Read on. |
| Concept: | 10 | The concept it great in my opinion. We've all read terrible articles that seem like they were written by 5-year-old's who don't know what an encyclopedia article is, let alone what satire or humor are. And this article is a great guide on how to write that kind of article, tongue-in-cheek, of course. Now, this being said, I am going to get into areas of revision/edits that I feel would really bring this entire article into the the 9-10 range. First, the introduction is not as strong as the rest of the article. The first few paragraphs are great. Then, there is a turn that seems random and does not fit with the intro. The paragraph that starts with "Everyone has been in a similar situation at some time or another, but as time passes, they learn to grow past it, or more often...", and the rest of the paragraphs after in the first section, should probably be in their own section, or another section. I think the intro would be strongest if the third paragraph of the first section read something like this: "But then you encounter a horrible problem: you do not know how. This article will tell you." Then, on to the next section. Also, regarding the introduction, the caption under the first picture of the elephant/mouse is confusing. The rest of the photos and their captions fit the article very, very well, so I would work the the caption of the photo to make it more manageable, while also being a bang-up intro into the article. The only other part of the article that is not strong, in my opinion, is the part about making a pattern out of blue links. I would probably excise this. After all, it's too clever for someone who has no idea about what he or she is doing in the first place. |
| Prose and formatting: | 9 | The prose and writing are overall very good. This is a very well-written article. After the first photo, all of the photos are great and appropriate, and the article looks very encyclopedic. I am going to struggle to find some suggestions for improvement here. As a personal style preference, I think there are a lot of rhetorical questions asked in the article, and I might tone the number down a bit. But that is it. (Also, I noted a red link to "Uncyclopedia article" that I guess should be removed.) |
| Images: | 9 | The images are very funny. It is so true that people add "hot chicks" or nonsensical photos to their articles, when they do not know what they are doing, just to make the article into eye candy. The running Zombies, the Harry Potter, the Hot Chicks, all great. Again, the only problem I have here is with the caption to the first photo, and maybe the first photo itself. |
| Miscellaneous: | 9.3 | I do not understand how or why it is that other people find this article confusing. Anyone who has spent any time on Uncyclopedia should "get it" immediately. But maybe that is an issue - newcomers may not get it. If this article is featured, it might be too much of an "insider" thing for outsiders who stumble on the page. But overall I don't think that is an issue, because the article is very clear about what to avoid doing in order to write a sensible article, and even a newbie should be able to read it and understand it. So I think it shows that this article has been through prior Pee Reviews, because it is now virtually a final product. If this were an initial review, I might find more problems. |
| Final Score: | 46.3 | Really, I think this article is ready to go except for the last few paragraphs of the intro, and the first photo and its caption. In other words, only a couple minor changes to make this article a top contender. |
| Reviewer: | --Sir NoNamesLeft CUN NotM 04:38, May 12, 2011 (UTC) | |