Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Nazi Hover Tank

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Nazi Hover Tank

I want to see where I can improve the article.--User:CandidToaster/sig 18:09, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

I got this, this will be the 2nd time I've reviewed an article of yours, so I'll take a break from bugging you after this one (the titles of your articles just draw me in, so it's your fault really :)). 21:22, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Bro I'll have it done by tomorrow, last 2 days have been unusually busy for me and if I'm gonna write you a review I want to give it my full attention 22:42, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

Humour:	6	In the interests of simplicity I'll start out with this.. A few things that made me laugh: "shredding hundreds of scientists into pieces when their fashionable black lab coats became caught in the rotating hover blades" "like this, but floating" "Molotov Neutralizer" "designed the vehicle to be used with several hundred, thumb sized batteries" "hoverable" And here are few things that seemed like bum notes: "(shooting projectiles, causing casualties and mental anguish)" (surely people know what a tank does?) "To the surprise of no one" (generalisation) "Nazi Germany, as usual" (specifically the 'as usual') "like all the other experiments made" So basically a bit too much generalisation, it's especially annoying when you have the capacity to be funny but still do it. Speaking of which, there are quite a few more funny bits than in the last article I reviewed by you. One other thing, the numbers. If you know there are only thirteen say then be specific about what happened to each one i.e. 5 broke, one floated off in another direction, two went to Paris etc. if you just say some went to Russia some fell down, some went to Paris, then another bunch floated off it seems like you a) don't know what you're talking about and b) don't care It's not like there are loads of these tanks so I think it'd be funny and a good plot device if the reader knew exactly what happened to each one. It also leads onto my next point which is that it's important to come accross as an authority on the subject, and getting right into the details instead of using generalisation is so important. This part of your writing has come on a lot since Lake Baikal, see if you can be even more meticulous and authoritative when you write another or re-write this one.
Concept:	9	What a great concept. I thought Lake Baikal was an odd one to choose but this is excellent, lots of potential, certainly could be a feature if you keep yanking out the weeds and sprinkle in a bit more inspiration.
Prose and formatting:	7	Never anything wrong with it.
Images:	8	Much better than the last one I reviewed, pictures you requested/made are much better and more apt. Try chucking a couple on the left though. People seem to like that, it makes your eyes snake down the page. Which people like for some reason.
Miscellaneous:	6
Final Score:	36	Still too much generalisation and presumptive statements, overexplaining also a small issue. I won't edit it like I did with your last one as (to quote SPIKE from the great beyond): "It's time you did your own heavy lifting".
Reviewer:	23:05, June 30, 2011 (UTC)