Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Sherlock Holmes (2nd review)

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Sherlock Holmes

Implemented some expansion, although I suspect it's not quite enough. Sir MacMania GUN— 23:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm here --ChiefjusticeDS 21:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	8	Alright, the article has some pretty good humour and I found it relatively amusing. However, there are a couple of problems for you to sort out before it can be brilliant. Firstly you have to be aware, if you are using the narrative voices of Holmes and Watson that you should still be able to make jokes. While the style is certainly amusing to start with, it gets old as we reach the latter part of the article, your other jokes on this depend on the reader being amused by the style. What you should try and do is introduce some varied sources of humour as well as the style. Also, while I realise that talking like Sherlock Holmes and Watson would about Uncyclopedia cannot be simple, try to ape the character's development and style, while you capture it some of the time, the character seems distant at other times. My final point here would be on the character's biography, some of the latter parts brush too close to violating Uncyclopedia: How to be funny and not just stupid:HTBFANJS for my liking. You should bear in mind that you can still be amusing without making things up, and it is rarely a good idea to mix nonsense with fact.
Concept:	7	The idea behind the article is original and I like the idea of Holmes and Watson discussing an Uncyclopedia article. Your tone is very sporadic throughout but I'll let you off for that as there is no real way of avoiding it. You lose a couple of points for introducing a new style and then scrapping it. If you are going to mix styles, as you do early on with the biography section and the preamble, then you should make it a staple of the article rather than an idea. As it stands at the moment the article feels more like an UnScript with an introduction in prose. While the material is good, I think your execution has made the article overly complex, and makes the prose seem like a good idea gone wrong. Since I enjoyed the section that was written in prose I was hoping to see more of it and was thus very disappointed that it did not reappear.
Prose and formatting:	9	Your spelling and grammar is, as usual, up to the standards I tend to expect, though a quick proofread will undoubtedy solve a lot of your problems (with the article and in life). What you should consider is the formatting of the Holmes and Watson sections. While this comment is irrelevant if you choose not to bother changing the sections, if you do then the goal would be to get this feeling like an article rather than an UnScript, as it does in places. Otherwise there are plenty of images but the formatting ensures the article does not feel cluttered by them, and the text is broken up well enough.
Images:	8	While most of your pictures are OK, I think you could do a bit better with some of them, as they feel unnecessary or do not compliment the text very well, many of these images appear in the latter half of the article and it might be worth going back and making sure that they are all worthwhile and you are making the most of your images.
Miscellaneous:	8	My overall grade of the article.
Final Score:	40	Some very good material here and it is another piece of impressive work from you. I think what you need to do now is apply the final polish to the article and make sure it is how you want it to be. Revisit some of your jokes and the issue of a lack of prose and you could be onto a winner with this one. Good luck with any edits and well done.
Reviewer:	--ChiefjusticeDS 07:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)