Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Knock knock joke
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Knock knock joke[edit source]
Dsvoid 00:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Er, right, hey. This is my first Uncyclopedia article, and I figure that I could get a lot of tips from the pros on it. It was meant as a simple experiment to try different Wiki text stuff and also to really make very different and varying humor styles. Enjoy, then! And please, do go ahead and review it harshly. I like to be hurt...
| Humour: | 7 | I'd call this pretty damn good for a quick laugh. It's rather short, which is surely a pity, but what there is is chosen well and used to much of its humour potential. The Origin section is a great idea and done well (though it could perhaps be longer), and the 'performing' and 'best' sections are pretty damn well-done (expand that former idea a bit, and you could end up writing a HowTo article on knock-knock jokes). Yep, the humour, while not crackingly hilarious, clearly illustrates talent and potential for the future. Nice work! |
| Concept: | 7 | Really solid stuff...I must say that I admire you for finding a topic not yet covered on your first time here. The whole idea of writing a 'history' for knock-knock jokes was a great one, and you did a pretty damn good job of it, though, like I said, perhaps you could have lengthened it a little-I'm sure there's plenty of periods of history that could be made to associate with the topic. You could, perhaps, accuse knock-knock jokes of starting a specific war. The other two sections are well-chosen and well-written, too, though I'm sure you could have scrawled out another section on something like "Famous knock-knock related people throughout history" and name-dropped a few famous historical personalities (though you should by no means force yourself to make it longer). Yep, all in all, a fine and well-thought-out concept for a begginner. |
| Prose and formatting: | 8.5 | Mm-hmm. Nope, nothing wrong here. Can't find any spelling or punctuation errors...nope, nothing. Of course, it's always possible to formalise the prose a bit more in the history section, just to remind people what you're talking about, but otherwise the prose is fine too (since most of the rest of the article calls for an unserious prose). Yep, in terms of this, you've done a pretty damn good job...that really bodes well for your future work here. |
| Images: | 2 | Ungh...pity about this one (that tumbleweed image hardly counts, and although I suppose those formulaes are technically images, I'm sure you'll agree that they really count as text). I know there aren't many images one can associate obviously with knock-knock jokes, but I'm sure there must be a .gif out there somewhere in the vastness of the internet of a guy knocking on a door and getting squashed by it, or something (not particularly funny, perhaps, but the right sort of caption can work wonders). And then, if you have something like photoshop, I'm sure you could do something with great with a few pictures of doors and some other stuff-perhaps in that 'medieval' section. This is really the article's only true weak point. |
| Miscellaneous: | 7 | I averaged this at first, but I manipulated the score a little because I feel the images things weighs in too heavily-though you'll probably want to remember that for next time. |
| Final Score: | 31.5 | For a beginner, I'd call this some mighty fine work right here...keep this standard up, find some more untouched topics, throw in a few images, and you'll flourish around here, I know it. Good luck! |
| Reviewer: | BlueYonder 11:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | |