Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Megaloscope

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Megaloscope

Well - this one is on the brink of making me laugh at times so I'll have to test it with others. Thanks in advance, all ideas are welcome. I'm building a universe so I'll need all the help I can get.

Style  Guide 17:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	4	There is plenty of scope here for more humour. However, an effort could be made to make the comedy more accessible to the layman. I'm certain that there is much here to make a scientist chuckle, but you have to remember that while Limeys and Yanks constantly debate and deliberate about what is or isn't funny, if only readers who are interested in physics understand the joke, then there's an opportunity missed. There's nothing wrong with specialist humour and I'm not advising you to dumb down the article, merely to provide a realistic framework so fools like me can appreciate the joke. Your tell tale comment above about this article being on the brink of making you laugh should have been a warning.
Concept:	5	The concept could be easily expanded. I suggest altering the basis of the article by writing about the Megaloscope as if it was an invention of a mad scientist from a 1950s B movie. This would tie in with my humour comments above. Lots of people have knowledge about Mad Scientists in B Movies, but slightly fewer know about mathematical formulas and such. Failing that, you could bear in mind the many failed experiments in reality down the years, (such as the Sinclair C5, etc) Or maybe, the Megaloscope could form the basis of an aborted HG Wells story. That could give it the push for reality your idea really warrants. Doff could be worthy of expansion since he created the Megaloscope.
Prose and formatting:	5	The writing occasionally strays from the textbook style you start out with. Keep an eye out for consistent tone. Much of the text is too technical and some of the syntax doesn't flow. Some simplification is required, but this is all minor stuff and that's what rewrites are for. My advice is to take a couple of days break from writing it, then return with fresh eyes. It always works for me.
Images:	5	Images could be improved. You could find some funny images. Maybe a white picture with a tiny, tiny, tiny black dot in the centre with the caption "An Atom, magnified 3 billion times by the Megaloscope". Asthetically, the one of Professor Doff is tough on the eyes (too big and lurid) as are the images showing the workshop (too dark). Professor Doff's image could be that of a crazed, wild-eyed loon.
Miscellaneous:	4.8	Averaged according to Pee.
Final Score:	23.8	You have the right basis for a specialist article, but I suspect you would find more gratification if more readers appreciated the article. Good luck with the rest of your universe building.
Reviewer:	Geoffprickett 14:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)