Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Pripyat River

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Pripyat River

I want this article to be in the top ten articles for 2008. Will you Please help me? Pretty Please?

This article is quite funny. What's wrong with it? --Rolando8 13:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Added considerably later: Bad things were done to this article. Specifically, the history section was poorly edited to cut most of the early regional history. A pic was removed. Various other bits were changed in odd, non-logical ways. As the review below mentions, it appears worse than it was before editing. I reverted it. Talk to me if you have questions. ----OEJ 16:27, 3 May 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 roll my sleeves up and have a go. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 14:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	6.5	OK, this is going to be a tough one to review for one reason: This is a decent article at heart, but it's not right. Unfortunately, looking at the history, there's no easy way to put this, most of the problems come from your additions. You've removed some of OEJ's subtlety, and not added much to compensate. And the large chunk you've hacked off the start leaves the "Despite Hitler's distribution of cyanide-laced bath salts the peasants won in the end" line you have left in looking completely random and without purpose. Linking to this review page is a bad idea, the Ringo Starr bit is pointless and irrelevant, as is King Borat, and generally, I'm sorry to say, you've taken a decent article backwards a bit. Your best addition is the interruption in the History section - that's not bad, and kind of sets up the others.
Concept:	8	OEJ's original concept is a good one. It could have done without some of your tweaks. The links (except the pee review one) are generally decent, but you need to think more about the subtlety of the article.
Prose and formatting:	7	Well, there's no problem with the writing or formatting on the whole. A couple of red links that need removing, and a couple of spelling mistakes (not, I think, deliberate as some are, I'm talking about "quater-pikes" and so forth. The ending does look a little ugly - one thing you didn't play with. I'd look at making that a little less jarring, while getting rid of the Cleese quote that kind of detracts from the article somewhat.
Images:	4	One. Relevant, and a decent pic, but an article of this length needs more. The one that was there, while not outstanding, did add something, and fit with the text that was there. I'd bring it back, along with the text, and find a couple of other pics - polluted water, dead animals beside the water, cheerful ugly folk opening their arms wide to welcome you, that sort of thing. Stuff that's relevant to the article.
Miscellaneous:	6.4	Averaged by order
Final Score:	31.9	Yes, well, sorry to sound so negative about your contributions, but you've taken on an interesting work by one of Uncyc's better authors (sadly, he seems to be inactive these days), which is a difficult thing to do. I'd recommend starting an article of your own, to develop your own style a bit more. If you do want to do a rewrite, Category:Rewrite is a good place to look. If you do want to persist with this article, seriously consider returning much of the content you excised (particularly as advised above), keeping in most of the links you added, and having another think. Adoption could also be worth a thought - it's not an admission of defeat, many fine writers started out by getting adopted by other fine writers. They can explain funny better than I can, and may help you enormously. Find an author you like, and ask them, or put {{adoptme}} on your userpage. Finally, this may sound a bit harsh, but everyone's got to start somewhere. Many good authors also started by making far worse contributions than this. So take heart - you did add some good stuff, and the fact that you're trying to go about things the right way augers well for the future, if you take things on board. And as ever, this is only my opinion, others are available, and good luck!
Reviewer:	--SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 15:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)