Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Nuclear semiotics (2)

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Nuclear semiotics

I've added and improved a lot more stuff since the last review.I am here in a loch 03:56, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

On it. --Black Flamingo 13:58, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Humour:	7	Hi there, this is a great article, however I have managed to find a few things that I think are holding it back. There isn't much to say in humour really, besides the fact that it isn't particularly "laugh-out-loud funny" at any point. There's not much I can suggest in regards to this besides trying to get some more punch lines in there. Perhaps have a look at each sentence carefully and think about how you might be able to tweak them into surprising, humorous twists. To make a bad example, see what I did to your first sentence: "...in the crumbling ruins of an advanced civilization. No, not Glasgow, we're talking about The Future". Like I say, it's a terrible joke, but I hope it demonstrates what I mean about punch lines. In the lede, there is a joke I didn't get: "Wordplay at its cruelest." Where is the wordplay, I don't see it? Also there are two Ls in “cruellest”. What I say about it not being laugh-out-loud funny might sound harsh but please bear in mind that I think this is a great article and don't mean that comment to be an insult. Some of the best comedy isn't that funny anyway, and this article is one of those that sorta suits not being side-splittingly hilarious. Anyway, that's probably about it for humour, let's move on to concept, where I think most of the issues lie.
Concept:	8	It's a good one but at the moment it's a bit all over the place. You start with a long section asking the reader to imagine themselves as a scavenger, then a scientist, then you start to talk about nuclear semiotics, then you give us a series of first-person stories from characters in the future. It's a little too much. A wonderful idea, you understand, but I feel you need to reign something in to stop it from looking so messy. This article is both amazingly funny and a really successful example of what you're trying to achieve here, so if you haven't already; check it out. You need to insert a simple framework to stop all these different speakers from making the article look like a chaotic mess. How about you start by introducing the idea of nuclear semiotics and the task force in the lede, and then in the following sections present a "solution" along with the story about how it played out (like what you do with the flowers, priests and cats, but do it for the scavenger with his sign too)? So your framework would look like this: Lede - talk about the difficulty of nuclear semiotics as you do in your "Introduction" section, but lose the part where you ask the reader to imagine they're a scientist. Section 1 - A Sign - move your first story about the long-tongued scavenger down and make it the first of your series of stories. The first proposal from the scientists could just be a simple sign, like the one that features in the scavenger's story. Then, instead of doing it in second person and present tense, write it like all the others (first person, past tense). This should make everything more consistent and easier to follow. Do you see what I mean here? Section 2 - Atomic Priests - as it is now Section 3 - Green glowing cats - as it is now Section 4 - Flowers - as it is now Overall this should improve the article greatly as it will have a clear beginning and a consistent middle, much like the Heat death article I linked you to.
Prose and formatting:	6	Intro The lede is good but does seem to drag on a bit. A gentle trimming of the not-so-vital stuff might help speed things along. Then again, if you do as I say and change it so it resembles the later stories then this might sort out some of the problem. Some of the writing here is slightly clumsy too, in my opinion. Look at "he nods at your direction", for example. Writing in both second person and present tense can be difficult and I think it has caused you to make a few slip ups (more reason to do as I say in the concept box). Look at this line: "Unlike other doors, this one was large and metallic, and wasn't connected to a building, but the face of a large mountain; this confuses your primitive brain, and you begin to grunt and yelp." It changes tense ("was") and is generally just quite hard to follow. If you want to keep the style, tense and person the same as it is here I would proofread it very carefully, and maybe try reading it out loud for sense. Otherwise you should consider revising it. The warning sign also drags on slightly, and I think you use too many ellipses (...). Some of the sentences are unnecessary and difficult to follow, in my opinion. Like this one: "The danger is in a particular location… it increases toward a center… the center of danger is here… of a particular size and shape, and below us." As above, a very careful proofread and perhaps a little trimming will definitely help. Introduction "Rubbing your forehead, this conundrum confuses you, and expresses loudly the difficulties of Nuclear semiotics" - again, difficult and clumsy. But this is also in a part that I propose changing/getting rid of, so maybe it won't be a big deal. The Atomic Priesthood I don't think you need to capitalise "radiation" or "gamma". Glowing green cats "Al was shocked until she remembered that Mr. Cuddlesworth was a telepathic cat. The first time the cat "talked" to her, she nearly fainted." - This sentence is necessary; I don't think we need such an explanation and it just looks like a crutch. The oddness of telepathy is funnier without the exposition. At least, I think so.
Images:	8	They are good. I especially enjoyed the green cat one. However, a lot of white space is caused by them so you may want to take a look at what you can do to minimise that.
Miscellaneous:	7.3	I used the average template here.
Final Score:	36.3	So to reiterate; a great article that perhaps just needs some streamlining and a couple more jokes. I would definitely vote to feature it with a little more work. If there's anything I've said here that you want me to explain better, or if you want my opinion on anything I might have missed, or even if you're just lonely, please let me know on my talky page and I'll try to help. Keep up the good work and I hope the review is ok.
Reviewer:	---Black Flamingo 14:45, March 11, 2012 (UTC)