Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Manhole

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Manhole

So what can I do to improve this old article of mine? First one I ever wrote on an actual subject that wasn't crap, assuming this ain't crap. Mind, if it is, I would really rather know about it.

And I swear this is not just to be annoying and put something else in the queue. Really. ~ (talk) (stalk) -- 20100828 - 14:03 (UTC)

Humour:	7.0046	Usually in this section I would go through each section, give it a dot point, and give some comments and suggestions, but as there are no definite sections (with all those 'They're coming' breaking it up), I won't. But as this is a humor section, I'll give you a basic comment on the level of humor. The humor is very unique and different, due to the strange concept. At the moment it is about average - good enough for a good chuckle but not quite up to the standard to send me rolling on the floor laugh. I think there are definite improvements to be made, and as I said, the main problems that have hurt your humor lie below in the concept section. That, and the prose section, is where the problems lie.
Concept:	7.013	Your concept is... strange, in a word. Not bad at all, just a bit... strange. You've basically got an article on manholes, but from the point of view as if they are plants. Ok. Then you have these interruptions in which another narrator starts saying things about the manholes coming after him - in a different color and font. So - it's unique. And it's also good - but it can definitely be improved. Because of your strange concept (if there is one here), a couple of large problems have arisen around the prose section, but I'll detail them here. I believe these are the biggest problems with your article and need to be fixed. Well, let's get onto it, shall we...? Your two big problems deal with your two different styles of writing. First, we have the Wikipedia styled bit, the actual article. The problem I find with this is it is a little boring and a tad confusing. That's probably because it's written in a very Wikipedia styled way, but I find it hinders the reader's chance of actually reading everything. They might just skip to the different colored font - which looks more interesting. And you don't want that. What you need to do here is try and make it a bit less 'complicated Wikipedia style', and really use this 'manhole as a plant' concept to it's potential. Instead of just species, it'd be great to see things like diet, habitat, mating... and so on. You want to make this section interesting wthout destroying the kind of strict, Wikipedia style you have built up. That means keeping your facts interesting, so you don't have to add jokes. Then we have your second bit, which are the interruptions by the second narrator. I feel these parts don’t flow as they should, and this actually hurts the whole article, as none of it then flows. I think the main problem here is the actual sections themselves are a bit too repetitive. ‘They’re coming’ is ok once or twice, but not over and over again. Maybe you could make the narrator actually describe the manholes coming? These parts are a bit too repetitive, and therefore don’t flow.
Prose and formatting:	5	You have a good style of prose - two alternating styles, but as I have detailed in the concept section, it doesn't work quite to it's potential. If you follow my advice above, the score for your prose will go up by a considerable amount. Your article also looks pretty good, nothing big to in the way of looks. However, a few points on the subject of formatting... The different font writing has some large gaps between the blocks of writing, and they leave some unsightly white spaces. You may want to experiment around with where and how big your spaces should be. These spaces have your article considerably less appealing to the eyes then it should. The contents bar doesn't very good. Add __NOTOC__ to your page and see how it looks then. Maybe add another picture. Again, test it out first and try and get the positioning perfect. A badly placed picture makes for bad looking section. There is a space between your 'whoops' line and the rest of the article that doesn't look very nice. Delete it. So, I think this is probably the weak part of your article - prose. It definitely hurts your article, as I've already gone on about in the concept section. Improvement here will definitely help your article.
Images:	6.0924	Your images are not particularly funny, but have some well written captions. That gives them a big hurdle humor wise. However, I think you could get some better ones. Maybe of someone falling down a manhole? Or a detailed diagram of the underground section of a manhole, labeling the plant features? Remember, you are telling us about manholes as if they are a plant, so that gives you the chance to get some good pictures with good captions. But, considering how you have written your article, you should limit your pictures once those 'They're coming' interruptions start getting more frequent.
Miscellaneous:	7.89	My overall rating of the article, give or take a few hundredths of a point.
Final Score:	33	This a decent and pretty strong article. However, there are a few things that definitely need to be improved to lift this article up in quality and generally improve it. Most of this stuff is to do with your style of writing, but there are other things that need fixing up, including a few little formatting things. If you do all this, this will be pretty much perfect - or at least as perfect you can get with this concept. Because of this strange concept, I’m no sure if it could get onto the front page, but I can’t know what the VFH voters will think. I hope I’ve helped here!
Reviewer:	07:31, August 29, 2010 (UTC)