Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Lost in Space (2nd review)
Lost in Space [edit source]
I got great suggestions from the first review, and made many edits. Somebody please let me know what you think of it now. Binky The WonderSkull 04:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
| Prose and Formatting: The writing style, spelling, grammar, layout and overall appearance. |
6.7 | To be blunt, there's not much I can say about this article at all... I agreed to review prior to reading, as I don't believe that picking only articles I like is not beneficial to Uncyclopedia in the long run.
Starting with grammar and spelling, there are no issues here that I came across. The only thing I can pick out here is the treatment of names, titles and quotes. If you choose to present one of these a particular way, then it means you should do this with all of them. Names of people could be bold when you first read them, especially as there are a fair few players involved. I would also have the details of characters in some tabular format in Cast. I'd be talking about head shot, character name, actor name brief synopsis on both, and other roles. Titles of episodes and other shows are in quotations in some places, and italicised in others. Italicised them all, because it makes them separate from the quotes themselves. To make it a little more encyclopaedic, have all the quotes referenced. Invent your sources if needs be. Other than that, opening is too long and too often repeated in the body, and closing is too short. |
| Concept: How good an idea is behind the article? |
6.7 | I don't know... The show is probably a little to obscure for a lot of the uncyclopedean audience, and the references to star trek... to be honest the whole star trek v lost in space thing annoys me. If you want to do something on star trek, then do that. In here it's just annoying.
The other thing is the overabundance of sexually based humour. If the reader doesn't find it funny at first, which I didn't, the constant reiteration just becomes aggravating. The main thing that bugged me is this is a show that is hysterical by itself because there are so many kitsch notes in it. You barely scratch the genuine absurdity of the show (except in the synopsis of the plot, the highlight of the article), but instead add in all this random unfunny references. |
| Humour: How funny is it? Why is it funny? How can it be funnier? |
5.7 | In short, I didn't find it funny. I'm sure that there are others that do, but in my case - potentially because the concept doesn't work for me - most, if not all of the humour falls flat. It is intelligently written prose, but not wittily written satire. There is the potential for humour in the topic that just hasn't been tapped, and the inclusion of humoure that steals from the concept is just grating. |
| Images: How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting? |
6.9 | Overall good, however just a few minor notes
1) The Jupiter 2 image... You can see the hand holding it... That has to be worth saying something about. 2) The Isaac Asimov image is pure Ick. It is poorly 'chopped and it adds nothing to your article, and duie to the lack of quality actually robs your article of much needed polish. 3) The doctor Smith playing with his stick is tiny. I can't see an advantage in having that image in the article, especially when it's dropped in there with no caption. |
| Miscellaneous: The article's overall quality - that indefinable something. |
6.5 | Okay, I didn't enjoy this, but I can see the work and time put into it... But it really doesn't ring true to me. I feel guilty for such a horrible review, but the truth is that overall, it's average.
It is well written, but not very funny. The concept is mediocre as it is, but with the potential to be good, and the humour is sadly lacking. The images are good, but some of them just shouldn't be in there. It can be made better with a bit of polish, but it will take a fair amount of inspiration as well as perspiration to make that next leap. |
| Final Score: How much can it be improved and what are the most important areas to work on. |
32.5 | Having said all that, reviews are 90% opinion. I truly hope that I am proved wrong in my estimation of this piece. |
| Reviewer: | Pup | |
Thanks for your review. As I said in the first review, I've been trying to rewrite an article, which I think is harder than starting one from scratch. And don't apologize for giving your honest opinion. I wouldn't want anything less! Binky The WonderSkull 16:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)