Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Perfectionism (3rd review)

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Perfectionism

This is the 3rd time I've put this article up for review. I've been told both times it has plenty of potential, but at the same time it's missing something. The focal point of this review should be on how it can improve on it's good parts and what crap in it needs to be pruned. I'd prefer a third opinion entirely, but I am always welcome to the suggestions of the other two reviewers on the talk page. We can still save this article from mediocracy. I just need a little help. Sir Not A Good Username360 KUN 15:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nachlader will review this article. So leave him alone. Honestly. You want to argue with a face like that?

Hey Nachlader, are you still doing this review? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 16:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

luhguhgluhglhghghluhglhgl. Well yes. I do have a life you know. Will be done before the clock striketh twelth. I'll be the guy in the wolf costume. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 16:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. You're allowed to have a life. Now you talk about it, there's some stuff I oughta do... -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 16:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now this is the EXACT advise I've been looking for! This really shouldn't be a problem to fix for me. But first thing's first: Cutting the crap. I'm putting the construction template up for a while; trust me, I've got some GREAT ideas I'm just DYING to try out now! Sir Not A Good Username360 KUN 01:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear, mate. Good luck and have fun! ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 21:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've rewritten the 93% of the article. All that needs to be done is to make the author hesitate and crack more. I'd estimate it'll be ready for it's 4th review by the end of the weekend (maybe slightly longer). Thanks again, Nachlader! You're a lifesaver! Or, rather, an Articlesaver! Sir Not A Good Username360 KUN 20:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	4	Okay, so I can definitely see why several users label this with the fashionable, highly-strung word that is "potential". In that very same front, I can also see what should be extracted and installed in it's place, the "missing something", if you like. Maybe here and there, there is way too much deep-set detail and assault into the joke. For example, the opening lines of the introduction, whereupon the perfectionist author has stricken through six different lines: to me, the idea of the joke has already reached my mind after the second strike-through, and the sixth line in particular is rather off-setting. Consider how much you may be labouring on certain parts of the joke. Also, I don't believe that'd be the end of it either: all seven lines had the right idea, which is great and it offers a dock in which to push off the boat, but neither of them possess jetties and so the ship sinks to the bottom before it even sets off. In self-referential articles, I tend to believe that the best way to execute the article is to try and let the subject, character or ailment in question twist out the funnies, and therefore allow the text to sound relatively normal, because there is so little need in adding anything random. This is explained further in the concept section of this review. I suggest you base the entire comedy factor over the self-referential idea. Again, this is explored in concept. For an extra joke - let the article's own title seem inflicted by having it come out as "Perfectionist Perfecsh Perfectionism". Do this by adding: {{title-left|<s>Perfectionist</s> <s>Perfecsh</s> Perfectionism}} at the top of the article.
Concept:	6	Definitely interesting. My first thought would be that the already-existing article on OCD would blow this idea out of the water, considering it's featured, but no, both articles explore a related subject in varying angles. However, while the execution is certainly not half-hearted, it is instead fully reckless. There are entire sections, if not lines, that deserve to be taken out of this article. Of the sections, all four of On to the freaking article, already, How To NOT Get Murdered By A Perfectionist, What To Do If A Perfectionist Is After You and Mary are just far too disappointing for me (and for extra measure, get rid of the see also section; what has death and disease got to do with the subject anyway?). I can earnestly see no place for them in this article in it's best state. A good thing to remember is; even if people believe an idea carries so much promise, it doesn't mean the very same idea deserves to be milked. In essence, you try to add too much to the article, that you lose sight of what you're really adding, and the article steers towards the downward spiral. Some ideas are so good, all it needs is just a few sections. From the current set-up you've conjured, I'd say that the sections on Personality, Habits and maybe JUST Physical Appearance (some fun could be had here with an image) deserve to stay. However, I suggest you try again at what you'd put in those sections, so delete the content anyway. Weave them in to full sections, rather than sub-sections under Physical Traits (After all, a personality is a mental construct, whereas the word 'physical' is something you use your sense of touch with. It looks silly with personality under a section called Physical Traits). I'd suggest adding a section on History where the person who coined the term 'perfectionist' couldn't decide whether to call it 'detailer' or a 'persister' or suchlike, but settled on the former p-word. Toy around with it. Another section I could suggest, and what I'd probably use as the punchline section, Determination of the perfectionist, whereupon the author is finally cracking: Strikethroughs are seen more (perhaps on entire sentences), hesitation is evident within the imbalance of the prose ("I-in truth... The r-r-real length t-that... t-that... that a p-p-p-perfectionist i-is willing to g-go is..."), before the author yells out in horrible frustration and the article closes. Keep the perfectionist theme constant throughout the article, the part where the author goes "Ah, now THIS is a section: pure, misspeling-free, clear, true, and mildly funny stuff. This section doesn't need any improvements!" just seems useless. Every part of the article needs to be hindered by the perfectionist. As for minor parts: Don't mention the reader in any way ("What if a complete idiot like Nachlader (USERNAME template, that is) shows up and reads this?!? Maybe if I put it in layman's terms they'd understand... yeeeeah...") or even insult them. Don't break off in the middle of a section to create the 'inner thoughts' of the author by using italics - it doesn't work, I could care less what has to be said in this kind of thing. If you want to create that effect, just randomly put "No... Hang on..." or "... Let me try again" and such every now and then. Do not add things like "<cough> <cough>". Do not, repeat, resort to random humour. Stay on topic. This means parts like the McDonalds and trigger side bits. Do not mention Chuck Norris. Or any other meme, ever. You should get the idea of what shouldn't be in the article by now. And concept advice in general: when writing a self-referential article, a neat idea is to visit the Wikipedia article on the subject and imagine if the content was, in fact, self-referring. You carry a very powerful sense of insistence and willingness if you've gone to your third review under the guise that you feel heartened inspired by words; that the idea holds promise - this is true - but you need to inflict the idea properly. You can, and I'm not just saying this, do this article in the way it fully deserves to be done.
Prose and formatting:	4	Hardy. Spelling mistakes litter the place, the text is rather clunky at times and the excess use of certain coding just wraps itself around the prose and chokes it, rendering my attention span to the article useless. A slightly related topic; what browser do you use? I'm using Google Chrome and it is able to tell me if I've made a typo, I'm sure other browsers have this feature, notably Firefox. If you want an alternative spell-checker, I'd suggest copy+pasting the article into a word processor and let that point out the prose misdemeanours. Here are several examples of misspellings you'll want to take care of next time: Obssesed - Obsessed. Beleive - Several times. Believe. Do you believe the first woman was Eve? Calibur - Calibre. Not sure what calibur is meant to be. Bizzare - Only one 'z', bizarre. The Russians killed the Czar because he was bizarre. I can't think of a word that has two 'z's next to each other. Lamborgini - Lamborghini. Cleansliness - Cleanliness. I could go on. Get a spell-checker. Also, remember that breaks in the narration of the article, like actions (" Or- shudder, shudder- a Pee Review of 30?!?") can be quite profoundly ugly. If you want to create an emotion in the author's words and ensure that the reader can understand, just use words. In the aforementioned quote, I would've written it as: "Or - god forbid - a PEE review of 30!?". Also, don't overuse question/illustration marks at the end of a sentence. Points given for the work ethic here, you managed to spew out a big word count. But remember this doesn't mean it's a good article. I have suggested you rewrite a vast majority of this article, so I don't think there is a need to worry about the images in this current state - however, do take care to remember the advice.
Images:	4	Bottling it. Four images supplied, not enough for an article on this length. Only one of the images seemed fitting to me, the pi image. The rest don't seem relevant. The Tony Blair image just implies you've read the HTBFANJS guide, but you couldn't think of any images, so you used the guide's instead, insinuating that the article has no originality whatsoever. The Mona Lisa and Da Vinci images; you can do better than that. Suggestions? The first image should be - caption: "An drawer A penciller's An artist's idea impression of a obsessed mistake-prone person perfectionist." with a picture of several scribbled out attempts to draw a person (it doesn't have to be detailed). If you go to RadicalX's corner, I'm sure you can find someone willing to help you here. I can suggest only one more image, but only if you decide to add a history section discussing the founder of the term 'perfectionism'. The image should be an unfinished painting of someone important looking (there were plenty of these in the past) with the caption: "A painting of {Person's name}. Unfortunately s/he had decided to hire an artist who happened to be perfectionist. This selected painting is believed to be the seventh attempt". If you decide to go with my idea of a full structural rewrite, I'd say only three images would be needed.
Miscellaneous:	4.75	Average'd.
Final Score:	22.75	Do not be discouraged by this score - you have heard the right words from the previous two reviews: this article looks at the right direction, but you need to be able to take it there. Think about the real topic of perfectionism seriously, so you can eliminate the prospect of random humour ruining the whole thing, and just let the self-referential joke do it's stuff. I clearly understand that this review dictates a lot of work for this article to reach it's full potential, but this is what the article honestly deserves. The article needs a full revamp: work on the humour, work on the concept, work on the structure, work on the images, concentration upon the misgiving of the prose, etc, etc. Luckily, all you need is the very same strength and determination that has taken you to your third review yet. I wish you the best of luck - if you choose to listen to the full extent of my advice - and there are other opinions available.
Reviewer:	---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 00:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)