Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Liquid Win (quick)

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Liquid Win

Occorru 06:12, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Just finished refurbishing this ICU article, did the best I could to bring it back from the brink.

¡Hola! This valiant VMI cadet is here to guard this article while it is reviewed by: -- Sf13 If he hasn't reviewed it within 24 hours since 01:37 EST 10 Feb, remove this tag and shout at him.

• Butts in* Dammit, you got it before I did. I'm too slow. :) —Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 07:21, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Humour:	2.75	I usually put the bulk of my reviews into the humor section, just so it's easier to condense my thoughts. I'll give you my intial thoughts after a single read-through, then go in section by section and tell you what I liked and what I thought didn't quite work. Initial Impressions Oh boy, well, it didn't take long for me to read all the way through your article, it's very short and lacks a bunch of substance. I tagged this review since you said you re-wrote it for ICU, but I think there is going to be a bunch of negative stuff in this review. My initial impression after reading this is that this article probably should just be deleted, but I'll give it a faithful look for you. Hopefully you'll see this as more helpful than just a stiff rebuking. Section by Section Introduction Well, lets begin. Your introduction is dripping with random nonsense, silly stuff, and internet memeism. As a new member of Der Unwehr I have adopted our group's general dislike of internet memeism being overused on uncyclopedia. Now, 1946. Why 1946? was it developed in the aftermath of weapons experiments for WWII by the US government? Was it stolen from the Soviets? You seem to pick 1946 arbitrarily without any explanation as to why it was being developed at this time. You seem to hint at WWII, but better to give exposition for reader interest and clarity. Demotivational posters and disgruntled mothers involved in a secret scientific project. Uncyclopedia is a parody of wikipedia, thus we strive for encyclopedic tones in our articles. We are trying to make satire, not random gibberish in the hopes 12 year old children will laugh at it for is nonsensicality. I would recommend if you are truly serious about improving this article to take a more encyclopedic tone. Explain using true scientific BS how it was the liquid win was derived from liquid fail. Make jokes that tie into the real world, included real research firms, tie this into the recent climate change science scandal, something along those lines will be a lot more accessible and humorous. If we wanted demontivational posters and internet memeism, we would all be exclusively on 4chan. Satire is key my friend. if you're going to claim something ridiculous like an orphan boys laughter converts 'fail' to 'win' then you need to explain how in a funny way. you don't do that. And Sir Willy Wonka? I wasn't aware that willy wonka was knighted by the Queen, nor that he was real. Or even in the fictional universe that he was associated with science or anything that didn't have to do with candy. I'm not really saying you shouldn't mention or use willy wonka period, just that he doesn't fit the context of your article at all. and why for the love of God would Willy Wonka give liquid win to terrorists to test it out while they killed civilians? This is not only not funny, but offensive, and the fact that is is both at once makes it a no-go. September 11th, imo, is barely funny in any context, let alone this one. Price this section is short, makes little sense, and isn't funny. re-do it entirely Description This section is much better than your previous ones. For starters, it is a little less absurd. You also start using much more descriptive language laced with funky fresh adjectives. This is a good approach: it's faux intellectualism and encyclopedic in tone. However, I don't like the conceptual angle you took with this. If it is now a product designed to give you 'win', why would the flavors be named "kill me now" and the like? It would be funnier if you did something like, "It is a horrible tasting beverage and tends to shred the drinker's stomach lining. It comes in many flavors, the most popular of which are; "My God, This is Tasty!" and "Chocolate Toxic Flavor Blast" That's just an off the top of my head suggestion, but you get the idea I'm sure. "Liquid Win is known to cause illusions of competance, and is therefore sought after by many Republican politicians." This actually gave me a couple of ideas for jokes. Also, the republican jab is actually a little funny. First, causing these illusions shouldn't be hinted at as an urban legend, you should state it as fact. Actually, I would make that the whole focus of the substance, it creates illusions of being better than you actually are. This would be a good focus to center the article around. also, relate its properties to "its close cousin, liquid courage." just an idea. Manufacturing Technique This is all wrong, it isn't funny and it doesn't follow any sort of logical pattern. If you're going to be silly, at the very least don't be as random as you are right here. Purposes Well, this is simply a list without any sort of substance to it, so it only goes so far. Decreasing lifespan is pretty much the only thing on your list that makes sense and that I would keep.
Concept:	2.25	This isn't especially original, an article created to associate with an internet meme (win and fail) is potentially very boring. Your execution of this concept is average to poor at best.
Prose and formatting:	2.5	You have numerous spelling and grammar issues. For example, your second sentence, with corrections: "The prototype fail, discovered to be highly volatile, was pressed into demotivational posters by a group of disapproving mothers in order to prevent self esteem damage." There are numerous other issues like these throughout. I would run this through MS word to pick up on the spelling and basic grammar issues. For the more complex syntax issues you sometimes run in to, you're simply going to have to hunt them down yourself since no software really does it for you. Which brings me to your section headings. For the amount of content, you have too many of them. you also have sections that are extraneous. You could very easily take what you have and boil it down to two or three sections tops. you also link Liquid Fail three times and the third one is a red link to boot. One link is enough for an article, especially one of this length. You have a red link for Nuclear Arms as well.
Images:	4.5	slightly below average image, average caption (in the context of the article's content). Technically, for the length of your article, the number of images is about right. If you expand this, you'll need to add more images.
Miscellaneous:	2.75	This really didn't make me laugh. On top of that, I'm not really into the idea of this article either. It is going to take some skill to make this average concept into a feature-worthy piece.
Final Score:	14.75	I really don't think this is your best effort, I'm going to challenge you to make this into a good article. spend some time developing your ideas, sketch out a draft, edit it, then post it. Good article's aren't made in a day my friend. I want to see what you come up with when your done, and take your time, there's no rush. my suggestions for tackling this article would be to: take a more serious tone throughout and be consistent. center the concept of Liquid Win as a byproduct of WWII weapons research that is now a famous energy drink or another product that is sold in convenience stores. Also, it's basic psychoactive property is that it makes you think you are better than you actually are. develop your ideas and lengthen the piece. I checked your contribution history and it looks like today was the first day of activity for you since you joined in October last year. I would recommend that you have a look over Uncyclopedia:How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid Any need to talk to me about this review or anything else, please feel free to drop by my talk page.
Reviewer:	--Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 20:29 EST 10 Feb, 2010 (if you found this review helpful, I would appreciate your vote for reviewer of the month!)