Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Man Scale

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Man scale

The Gerrish 17:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	6	This is pretty funny, the Man Scale iteself especially. However, there are some really major issues with this article that I'll elaborate on in the 'Prose' section because most of my problems have to do with that. As for the actual humor is concerned, conceptually this article is really funny but in practice if falls flat. You transition between a serious, almost tedious scientific tone and ridiculous humor. It basically reads like this: "MathstuffMathstuffMathstuffMathstuffMathstuffMathstuffMathstuff OMGosh! Stupid joke! MathstuffMathstuffMathstuffMathstuff..." You do not want it to read like this. Because it's bad. Doing the whole "serious serious AHH! serious" thing can be really funny, but here it's just awkward. I'm not going to tell you what to do, but work on finding a middle ground. In additon, this article seems to focus a great deal more on the lads who discovered the Man Scale than the actual friggin' Man Scale. I mean, you hardly ever use the phrase "Man Scale," which is a shame because your article is called MAN SCALE. Doing something as simple as needlessly repeating the phrase MAN SCALE can be hilarious if done right, and there's no attempt at doing that. Also, you used the pseudo-word "maths." No. None of this internet/engineering/pseudo-joke bullshit. No. Also, Man Scale.
Concept:	10	Brilliant concept. I'm sure every group of friends (well, "man-friends" anyway) have some sort of similar scale. My friends have something called the "Sweetness Chart" that ranks things according to arbitrary levels of "coolness," measured in a unit I dubbed "Fonzis." But you didn't need to know any of that. Man Scale.
Prose and formatting:	3	OK, here are my issues: The article is one great, big, scary wall of text. There are no links, next to no pictures, and a lot of exposition that doesn't serve much purpose. The very lengthy extended history you give is kinda cool (probably based in part on anecdote, if I had to venture a guess), but it gets laborious after a while and doesn't actually flippin' go anywhere. Trim that down. The Levett conjecture, especially, doesn't really do anything. It's a big, scary block of text that hasn't one laugh in it. Loose it. The Man Scale itself. Why is part of the Man Scale chart so much bigger than the other part of the man scale chart? That just looks bad. Fix the Man Scale. Make the Man Scale look nice. In addition, you clustered all two of your pictures in one area, which also looks bad. What's more, they run into each other, so one of you sections has this great big fucking white space up top. Again, looks bad. The writing itself is fine, although there are some clunky bits grammatically in a few parts. Just copy-paste the article to a word document to indentify them, and take care of them accordingly. Man Scale. Here's what I'd do if I were you: First, trim the article down like mad. Organize it according to sections like, dunno, "History of the Man Scale," "The Man Scale," "Potential Problems with the Man Scale," "Impact of the Man Scale," and that's it. When people other than you and the strapping young lads the discovered the Man Scale with you read this, they're going to want to read about the fucking MAN SCALE, not Mr. Garrish and his associates. I mean, what's funnier, "History of the Man Scale" or "The Levett Conjecture"? Oh, and ADD LINKS.
Images:	4	You've got two really generic pictures of math-related stuff, which actually run into each other on my 17" monitor with the page fully expanded. Something like that would probably be negative points on the man scale. At very least you can make it so the images don't awkwardly bump into each other like engineering students in a cramped laundry room. And while you're at it, add s'more flipping pictures, even if it's just generic math stuff.
Miscellaneous:	7	The article is called "Man Scale."
Final Score:	30	This has a lot of potential if you do a MAJOR clean-up job. Finally, Man Scale.
Reviewer:	—Sir Guildensternenstein 20:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)