Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Natalya Ivanova
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Natalya Ivanova[edit source]
I worked hard on this page, and tried to make it as good and funny as I could. To understand much of it, you may need to be fmiliar with the game Destroy All Humans! 2.
SWJS 05:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
|
A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article is being reviewed by: UU - natter  (While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead). (Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole). |
OK, I'll take this one. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 11:33, Apr 28
| Humour: | 2 | Hmm, this isn't going to be pretty, I'm afraid, so strap yourself in and prepare. There isn't much funny, unfortunately - it's pretty much random, and there's a lot of stuff about her being a slut, raping everything in sight (animate or not), and so forth. We also have memes (Chuck Norris), more random (seriously, you bounce all over the place without connecting much of your ideas to each other (Michael Jackson, Mowgli, Admiral Ackbar, wtf?)), plus there are elements where it just feels like a kind of rant against someone hated ("this created the world's biggest pile of shit" - niiice...) and generally, this lacks most of the things we look for in an article around here. You may well have seen a page or two like this on the site - but it's not really what we try to encourage. Have you had a good look at HTBFANJS? Despite the name, it's actually a selection of handy comedy writing tips that outlines what this site aims for. Also, have a look through some previously featured articles, to get an idea of what works around here. Honestly: in this state, this article isn't going to do well around here. That's not me trying to offend you - I've been around here a while, and seen a lot of articles like this one, and I'm just trying to be honest with you. |
| Concept: | 2 | Relatively obscure characters from games rarely make good articles, particularly when most of the article is based around sex references. If you want to make a decent article, the first step is to create a coherent central concept - and preferably not one about how hawt or how much of a slut she is, that gets done all the time. |
| Prose and formatting: | 4 | Meh, formatting's OK, and it's linked appropriately and so forth, but the random and rambling unconnected nature of the prose countas against it, as does the number of typos ("enourmous", "shrivled", "immediatly", "inseperble", "Discrace", "resistence", "averadge" etc etc). Basically, it needs a massive tidy up. |
| Images: | 4 | Well, you have some, and a couple are even relevant. But others aren't, or they're relevant to the random bits that need pruning (the "piece of shit" bit springs instantly to mind). |
| Miscellaneous: | 3 | Averaged as I have nothing else to say here. |
| Final Score: | 15 | OK, this is not a great score, sorry about that, but I'm speaking from a bit of experience here. This article, as it is, possibly won't last too long on this site. However, all is not lost! No article is beyond saving, if there is someone prepared to put the effort in. You need to have a think about what you want to do with this article, and if this site is the best place for it. Illogicopedia, for instance, welcomes random articles, and this might fit in quite well over there. If you want it to fit in here, then start with the following steps:
With a bit of luck, and some work, you can turn this right around. Remember, though, that this is only my opinion, and others are available. Finally, good luck! |
| Reviewer: | --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 12:03, Apr 28 | |