Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Martin Scorsese

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Martin Scorsese

Notme 20:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC) I rewrote the Scorsese page, which was wallowing in the deepest depths of incoherency, out of a sincere respect for the man and his art. I think it still needs some work (fleshing out ideas, etc). I ask that you wiki gods guide me in this quest, to help me see which parts work, which don't, and what needs to be elaborated on. Thanks.

• Sycamore is taking a slash on your article--Sycamore (Talk) 10:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Sycamore had his piss--Sycamore (Talk) 11:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	7	There’s some good stuff in here, just very messy, the quote you’ve added gives a very weak start- I would change this. You also have a very in your face take on him, maybe you could be a little more subtle and, for example, make fun of his own belief that he is some sort of hard man- you do this a little but more would not hurt. The weak formatting and the whole ‘free writing’ approach does not add to the humour. The images are very good though and your knowledge of Scorsese is good which add to the piece.
Concept:	6	Difficult for me to say, I don't think this is anything close to being one of the top articles (sorry pal), for it to work a bit of a re think is probably in order, however perseverance is everything; it's very possible to make this a good article.
Prose and formatting:	3	This is my most major gripe, there are no links, and your further links category is a shrew, the sections are poorly divided giving a very Hodge podge look- maybe look at this article and copy some of formatting or look at some of this user’s work. The template seems unnecessary, maybe jus the unfilm template could be added; most of the 'filmmakers of the world template' aren't very good and it messes up the article as a whole because it takes up most of the page. It could also do with more proofreading as it looks messy on this front, there is the Proofreading Service when you are ready. Again I am critical here because you're article could be competing with some of the best is you correct this prose and formatting; you've asked about expanding and filling out; I personally would caution against that as is will become to large and unwieldy for you complete, maybe concentrate on fixing this aspect more and then submit it again.
Images:	8	Strong here, badly placed though and possibly too few. Expansion here will come naturally if you fix the formatting as you'll be able to just see where to add images and take them away. The shrew does not work really, the rest look good however. I would not change these as there does not seem to be any drastic improvement you could do on this front
Miscellaneous:	10	An article with a lot of potential, keep up with it and I'm sure you'll be doing well with it. Some of the other ones you have done are pretty good like the Nic Cage one, so there’s no reason why you can't do top notch one with this
Final Score:	34	I hope my review has been of some help to you- if there any point raises just give me a shout on my talk page
Reviewer:	--Sycamore (Talk) 11:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)