Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Raptor Jesus
Raptor Jesus[edit source]
I cleaned it up a while ago and would be pleased to know how I can make it somewhat better. —Sir Socky
(talk) (stalk)
GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 19:11, 7 January 2010
I'll get this one, 24 hours. --ChiefjusticeDS 21:32, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
- Will be a bit longer, covering a shift at work, will have to be tomorrow. Sorry. --ChiefjusticeDS 22:22, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
| Humour: | 5 | The humour in the article is reasonable and there are some good parts, however they are often to be found in competition with other less desirable aspects of the article. The first problem I noticed was that the article is very random, admittedly the entire premise of the article is pretty random in itself but there is no structure within that. Look at it this way, creating an article like this is fine because while it is random it doesn't swamp the reader and is intriguing in itself, however it does mean that you are somewhat restricted as far as being randomness goes for the rest of the article. If I made an article entitled "Cyborg Taxi Killing machine" and then the entire narrative did not make the concept at all believable then the article would experience problems, and I think this is where your article is tripping up. The randomness should, while being employed to keep the article amusing, not go too far. If I take an instance from your article to demonstrate; saying "He earned a bachelor's degree in microelectronic engineering at RIT" this sort of thing tagged onto the end of points makes the article's narrative seem incoherent and rushed and actually has a negative effect on the humour of the article. My advice would be to carefully go through your article and examine the narrative carefully for instances like this. The best way to identify them is to try to identify the start and end points of jokes, the jokes that should stay are the ones that are longer winded, and make sense in the context of the article. For instance, I am quite prepared to believe that Raptor Jesus exists but after I do so, I want the article to ask much less of my imagination, not because I'm lazy but more because creating the random premise means the humour has to be at odds with it for the article to make sense, otherwise the article may as well be about anything.
I would also recommend pruning out some of the Uncyclopedia in-jokes and tired jokes from the article, this is probably my irritation with such things, but it is also a way to complete a joke without doing much work, this, coupled with the above may seriously damage your article in the eyes of many people. My recommendation is that you look for these, by all means, if you consider one to be doing a good job as it is, leave it in, but my recommendation would be to try and adapt the points made by these jokes into better jokes or simply remove them and make the point a different way. The article is also quite incoherent at times, and the points it makes seem to become confused and it is difficult to ascertain what a writer is trying to say on a first read-through. For instance if Raptor Jesus supposedly roamed the Earth in 90,000,000,000 BHC, why are there any Romans, and, if this is before Human Christ why is God furious because they killed his son twice? When the jokes for the entire section rely on these two bits of information, them not making much sense ruins things, you should make an effort to look for points of inconsistency. If I am being a bit idiotic please indicate this to me, but currently it just feels rushed and confusing. The article's humour has good points but they are difficult to appreciate considering the problems with other aspects of the article. The article's randomness is less of a problem than it being inaccessible, even to those who enjoy that sort of thing more than I do. |
| Concept: | 7 | The idea behind your article is perfectly fine and it is your execution that is letting you down here. You should try to make the article's tone uniform throughout, this idea of consistency should extend to your image captions too. The problem is not too bad and the majority of the article conforms to the encyclopaedic tone, quoting appropriately and not addressing the reader directly. However, towards the end of the article this pleasing tone tails off and becomes confused, I would urge you to address this, you are experienced enough to know how to sort the tone out so I will leave you to it. |
| Prose and formatting: | 4 | Your prose aren't too bad and you seem to be checking pretty well, I would still recommend some quick checks to make sure you are completely satisfied with what you have written down. The main problem on this one is your formatting; there are a few red links, that didn't seem to be there for much of a reason, am I missing something? The images are forming something resembling a gauntlet for the text by sitting in either side of the page, especially in the middle of the article. My recommendation is that you try to remove some of them or at the very least shuffle them round so that the article feels less crowded. The reason for this is simply that the images are a secondary concern and the prose should attract attention first, by squeezing the text down the middle it near guarantees readers will stop reading to look at the images which can lead to the tone being spoiled. If this is what you intended or what you are pleased with then do not feel you have to change it, this is simply my opinion. The number of images is also a concern and I would be inclined to suggest that you remove all but three images, four if you are particularly attached to them. The criticisms here are mostly cosmetic and ultimately will have less of an effect on the article than other things, so don't worry unduly about this one. |
| Images: | 5 | They are OK, though I would recommend using your judgement to determine which ones should stay and which ones should not, some of them don't feel connected to the article and seem to be making separate points altogether, ideally they should compliment the text so that they feel like extensions of jokes rather than totally separate entities. Also, try to remember your captions if you have a look at the humour as a whole, they are more important than they look. |
| Miscellaneous: | 5 | My overall grade of the article. |
| Final Score: | 26 | My feeling about this one is that it is on it's way to being a reasonable article, but it is being held back by some minor issues. All it needs is a few more jokes, some continuation between the sections and a randomness reduction. These should all be done carefully, as there are some good bits to this article, they are just difficult to notice because of some of the other problems. If you have any questions or comments feel free to contact me on my talk page. Good luck making any changes. |
| Reviewer: | --ChiefjusticeDS 20:36, January 10, 2010 (UTC) | |
- Impressive review. I'll read through it and make the appropriate adjustments to the article when I find the time. This article isn't mine though, I've just tried to make the best of what others had written before. —Sir Socky
(talk) (stalk)
GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:00, 11 January 2010
- I realised, I tend to get caught up in calling it your article, regardless of who the author is. While I remember, I'm sorry for not voting for you on UotY, you came a close second to UU. I think you do really good work around here and deserve recognition for it, so thanks for putting in all the effort. --ChiefjusticeDS 17:10, January 11, 2010 (UTC)