Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Main Page
User:James1011R/http://en.uncyclopedia.co[edit source]
James1011R (talk) 23:29, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
- Article restored to userspace. Review up for grabs. Pup 07:47 08 Mar '12
| Humour: | 4 | Sorry, but definitely not at a fantastic stage. In fact this is at a stage where it would usually be deleted rather than featured.
So, the problem with the humour here is that there isn't much there to go from. It is an article that effectively says You're here because you stuffed up. That means I'm better than you. Now there are some comedians who do this and do it well. Insult comics are a real thing. But insult comics work on the basis that you can't insult the entire audience. Or imagine it this way - you go into a comedy club and the MC stands up and says You're all stupid. This isn't a comedy club, it's a cafe. And then the night ends. Would you consider it worth your time. So, in short, the concept is faulty. And while technical stuff can make for a great article - see Microsoft Knowledge Base or Game:Alone in the dark - there has to be more to a concept to keep it going. |
| Concept: | 5 | So, what's the next step from here? Retire this article to the back of your userspace. The idea of creating an article from the URL has some merit. The problem is adding to the concept you have at the moment.
In the meantime, try and work upon a more traditional approach to an article to get the maximum amount of funny out of it. Love is a featured article that uses almost no wiki-fu to make it work, Vitiligo is a non-feature that uses pure wiki-fu. Don't get me wrong, both of those articles are mine and both of them I'm proud of, but I also know which is the better out of the two of them. One day you will have an idea which will significantly improve the concept here, and you'll be able to come back to it and make it rock and roll. (I don't have a concept in mind for it. I'll probably think of something better soon, and I'll tell you when and if that comes, but it'll only come by me not trying to force it.) |
| Prose and formatting: | 7 | There is some clever coding at work here, as well as in your bad pee review article. Clever coding is fantastic, and I would like to see more of it.
It may be an idea to make your internal links look like external ones, and vice versa. Just for the giggle factor. |
| Images: | 3 | Okay, there was an image there, but it was fairly lame. It has stopped you getting a 0 score, but that's it. It didn't really add much to the article at all. |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | Okay, you obviously have seen a few of the games we have here on the past. Unfortunately our games, for the most part, are pretty lame. Maybe you could look at condensing them into fewer pages (like Game:Abyss and Game:Castle) and use that opportunity to work out how to get some more humour into them.
In the meantime, have a look at UN:IC and have a look at the last few colonisations we have done. the talk pages show how the concepts have been created. Most conceptualising for these has come through rejecting ideas rather than creating them. These are a good example of those thought processes in action. I'm happy with your coding skills, but coming up with a concept and then writing them is something a little different. And don't be disheartened - you're still new here, and having less than shining first articles is not only normal - it's mandatory. I still think Carebears sucks, and I've even rewritten that. Twice. |
| Final Score: | 25 | |
| Reviewer: | Pup 13:44, March 11, 2012 (UTC) | |