Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Shock Troopers
Shock Troopers[edit source]
MapleTree46 00:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
| Humour: | 4 | I see that User:Optimuschris put this in the ICU 28 minutes after it was written, and I've got to say, I have to second that. This article needs a lot of work. Basically, this article has one joke in it: the joke that someone would be enough of an obsessed fanboy to gush at length about the superiority of Shock Troopers to Storm Troopers. And that's not a terrible joke, I guess: it's kind of funny, just because it's entirely true: there are people like that. But there are a lot of things that prevent this joke from working, here.
First of all, this article is extremely short. It's only 2,133 bytes; most featured content is at least three times as long, and often six times as long. And it's pretty easy to think of the kind of material that would improve this; for example, someone like your fictional narrator would probably stick up elaborate graphs and charts and go into an absurd degree of analysis detailing the difference between the two groups, which, as a careful reader will infer, truly only consists of a sash and some weaponry. Another thing this article really needs is some kind of conclusion; it just breaks off in the middle. It looks unfinished. It is unfinished. Second, Uncyclopedia is supposed to be a parody of online encyclopedias like Wikipedia, so we try to write "main-space" articles with everything in a very formal, scholarly tone, just with ridiculous content. Sure, you can break out of that tone for comedic value, but it's important to establish it. So a sentence like "While stormtroopers where really suck-ass, Shock Troopers were 100% complete Rebel-killing beasts" just seems badly out of place. There's a little more room to play around with unusual, unencyclopedic voices when writing articles like "HowTo" guides and "Why?" ponderings. I can see from your edit history that this is only your second attempt at an article. You might want to look at some other articles to get a feel for their length and their style: for example, look at Uncyclopedia:Best of (really, that's just fun to look at, anyway). There are also some common pitfalls that this article encounters. TYPING IN ALL CAPS hurts an article more often than it helps it; here, I see why it's in there, but I'd lose it. Also, please lose the "R2D2 and C3PO are gay" joke. That joke has been done about six million times since 1977. We've had literally 31 years of that joke. It's time to put it to bed. And using the adjective "kick-ass" about seven times in two paragraphs is risky. I know it's part of the joke, that the fanboy can't stop saying "kick-ass," but it's still kind of annoying. |
| Concept: | 5 | The concept here is fine - an overenthusiastic fanboy who just has to tell the world about why one fictional kind of troop is better than the other. There's plenty to work with, there. The only problem is that an article can't exist entirely on presenting that concept; it needs more. |
| Prose and formatting: | 3 | I also see from the edit history that this article hasn't undergone a single revision - it was started and finished with one edit. That's extremely unusual, and it really shows evidence that it hasn't been proofread. The second sentence substitutes "where" for "were"; "Stormtroopers" is not consistently capitalized; the whole article is bleeding with red links (we generally try to avoid those); "Christmas" isn't capitalized, "except" is misspelled, the spacing after "Christmas" is wrong, the sentence about Han Solo is missing a pronoun - there are just too many mistakes.
As for the formatting, the Dewback picture is in an awkward place, and there are only two sections, which means the article really doesn't have any sense of organization. |
| Images: | 6 | The articles spruce up the piece a bit, but they don't really add anything to its humor. |
| Miscellaneous: | 4.5 | Averaged |
| Final Score: | 22.5 | Good articles take a while to write. If you're interested in getting a featured article written, one that many people will enjoy and laugh at, it just takes a certain investment of time and energy. An article needs to be planned; it needs to be written and rewritten and revised; it needs to be proofread. Very few editors can sit down and slap out a quality piece of work. I know I can't.
I hope you take the time to really improve this one. I will say this: I did get a glance at the "MapleTree Productions" article before it was deleted, and this is a big improvement over that. Good luck! |
| Reviewer: | Hyperbole 20:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC) | |