Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Schrödinger's dog

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Schrödinger's dog

==============================================================

First Comments...

13:39, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

Humour:	6	It's quite funny in parts, random for the sake of random in others. The first quote is hilarious (good twist at the end), and the fourth quote is also quite funny. Quotes two and three add nothing and should be deleted. The other funny part of this article was the Arschlack section -- very clever. I'm struggling to say much more as far as humour is concerned, as there isn't much content here, except that the funniest funnies are the truest funnies. I didn't find the leap from "dog must choose biscuit" to "worm in dog poop causes rip in wormhole singularity". Besides making no sense, it's also nonsense, and nonsense is rarely comedy.
Concept:	5	The length of this article tells me all I need to know about the concept: it's a nice title with no substance. In my browser, the largest feature in this article is white space. The explanation of the experiment is particularly weak; as I said above, there's no real coherence between choosing a biscuit and worm-poo-wormhole mechanics. Can I suggest a good template for this kind of article? Have a look at Turing Duck Test, an Uncyclopedia-famous universally adored feature article that really shows an exemplary exemplar of an example. It's hard to think of a good example for an article concept, but how about a scientist who causes a minor doggie genocide by burying dogs alive in boxes and coming back later to test his theory? Now, I don't think that that's a very good concept either, but it's more like the guy's real theory and therefore is more likely to at least get chuckles of recognition.
Prose and formatting:	6	The lede is non-existent: normally Uncyc articles have a short section between the header and the first sub-header. Too much white space, and quotes really need to go at the top. Spelling is pretty good, but the first section is a bit awkwardly phrased.
Images:	7	Perfectly adequate, could do with better placement though.
Miscellaneous:	4	Not a fully formed article yet.
Final Score:	28	I can tell you're a decent writer, but you need better ideas before you start word-vomiting. Consider that the best humour is (a) reflective of reality, and (b) derived from a great concept, and you'll go far.
Reviewer:	IronLung 06:13, June 14, 2010 (UTC)