Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Poetry

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Poetry

Yes. EMC ^[TALK] 23:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I got this. --Mnbvcxz 02:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	6.9	6.9 Overall, I think this works by some sort of black magic; the overall quality of the article was more than the sum of the individual sections. Many of the poems are off-topic, and the text is attacky, but they some how canceled each other out, or, more precisely, the covered the failings of each other surprisingly well. The score is the average of sections, rounded to the nearest 10th by section: intro: 5.5 Here, you sort of get off on the wrong foot by starting too boldly. I'd suggest starting with a more deadpan entry, which may require you to remove the header quotes, as header quotes don't mess while with deadpan entry. Toward the end of the intro, you get close to absurd hyperbole and the proverbial verbal sledgehammer. For example, saying "Poetry blows." is a bit blunt, the topic sort of demands a bit more wit and subtlety. Origins of poetry: 5. The poem here is a bit stupid, and really doesn't advance the article. This only sticks out even worse by the outlandish end to the intro. Basic (other Examples): 6 Here, you have some funny stuff, but its mostly random poems. You could do a lot better here. Try to stay on topic, and don't ramble. You have a de facto list there, and lists tend to accumulate nonsense and rambling. Foreign language: 6.5 This could be better. Maybe if it were written is pseudo-German or, if you had an example of Hebrew or Arabic poetry too. Maybe spelling it out phonetically (foe-net-eek-lee) would help, or maybe it would just look stupid. Poetry's meaning & What poetry for?: 6.5 I would suggest merging these sections, and maybe adding some wit. Looking at them alone, they are a bit attacky and blunt. Looking back, I think the article seems more funny overall than in individual sections, but I digress. Haiku: 7.5 funny, I think the use of a random word at the end (refrigerator) works even though its a bit random. Stupid poetry & Stream of consciousness: 8 This is funny, but I think it should be re-worked. How is the first one "stupid poetry"? How about naming it "generic poetry" or something, and inserting a sub-section about a stupid poem, then making "Stream of consciousness" an extreme form of stupid poetry. Rap: 8.5 probably the best section so far. Good as is Making fun of Newfoundlanders poetry: 7 I can't make out what the chorus is, its needs some formatting so the reader can follow it more easily. Also, its funny, but a bit long. It should probably be trimmed, or moved to its own article. If you do keep it, you should probably try to shoe-horn some reason for its existence into the article. Maybe as an example of Canadian poetry. Other: 8 Looks like it is, good as is.
Concept:	7.5	This article stays on topic, and is funny without being silly or attacky. My main suggestion would be to convert the entire article into various forms of poetry. The current format is funny, but it has a high ugliness factor due to the frequent use of poetry. I think converting this to all poetry would improve the humor alot, and I think most readers expect a good poetry article to be made of poetry.
Prose and formatting:	6	I think this article is sort of at an unhappy medium. I wouldn't say you have formatting errors, but the article just feels ugly. The high use of poetry makes it difficult to obey standard formatting guidelines, but the article isn't quite to "look like what it is about" status. If you want to keep the current format, your main problem is the spareness of text, right side white space, and general "ugly" formats. Here are my suggestions for getting the ugly down: get rid of the extra horizontal lines and boxes as much as is possible. The box format and extra horizontal lines are ugly. and try to insert images where you have large amounts of white space on the right. To wit, in the "roses are red, violets are blue" and the "Making fun of Newfoundlanders" sections. Also, the article could stand more images. Try to not make the lines of the poem unnecessarily short, like in the Russian Reversal quote, you use 7 lines when 4 would have sufficed. On a similar note, you have several short paragraphs that could be combined.
Images:	6	Your article could stand more images, unless you somehow manage to contract its length significantly. Your first image is funny, but you might be able to do better. It might make a good "filler" image, but it might also work as the header image. The second image comes across as stupid, I'd advise replacing it. The 3rd one is also funny, and I'd probably keep it. You might want to use images that give your article a sort of outdated feel by using images that have an "artsy outdated" feel to them. [1] might be a good place to look for images. Or, you could check the wikimedia commons for other related movements that are wikipedia:Avant-garde.
Miscellaneous:	8.5	This has a lot of potential, but it still needs some work. After going over the humor section, I'm surprised how many problems it has while still being funnier than average. That's a good thing, it means this has the potential to be a great article.
Final Score:	34.9	This probably can be VFH with some work.
Reviewer:	--Mnbvcxz 03:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

<gallery>