Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Singapore (Colonization)

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Singapore

well, IC has finished up its latest project. it's not great, but it's a far sight better than the endless crap that was there before. anyway, an in-depth review would be excellent. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 15:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't help with this one, so i'll take a look at it. If someone else wants to, though, feel free. Saberwolf116 17:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I don't really review country articles. Saberwolf116 17:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Short and sharp. Can't review it as I can't finish reading it as I don't enjoy it. I'd suggest a complete bulldoze and re-create in the style of Singaporean Propaganda that keeps telling the audience how they are so much better than Malaysia because while Malaysia have ___ Singapore have ___. Go for the repetition/in-the-style and keep it simple. Pup

Humour:	9	Well, as I read it, your humour is perfectly fine, jokes make sense and they fit in well. I especially like the way in which the article has been modeled to be an exact parody of a country article on Wikipedia. The humour is subtle and fits very nicely, I especially like the tonal consistency with the humour. You successfully manage to remain detached from the article and the jokes fit so well with the encyclopedic style that you find yourself rereading them to ascertain that they were in fact jokes. This is a significant achievement and exactly as an article on uncyclopedia should be. I have however taxed you a point because the jokes are such a massive effort to find. They fit very well and the attentive reader will truly get the most from your article, however as uncyclopedia's user base mostly consists of red bull ingesting men, zooming around vandalizing articles and annoying the admins, such users are in short supply and I fear that the humour your article will be overlooked by most.
Concept:	9	Articles like this are very difficult to score for concept. While a country article is hardly an original concept your take on it is refreshing and engaging. As I said above, the detailed and comprehensive effort that has been put into parodying wikipedia's country pages is a welcome sight. I have scored it a 9 as you have clearly put a lot of effort into making the concept work, such an article is very easy to abandon and make accessible to the masses, while credit is due because you have not done this and those of us who managed to get through to the end can feel all superior, it will not bring your article much recognition or credit and possibly votes for deletion.
Prose and formatting:	5	Now, while I am all for the encyclopedic perspective in articles the approach taken here is far too extensive. I would recommend serious editing if this article is going to be enjoyed. Your prose are too long and I found myself groaning inwardly as I surveyed the sections. While the content of your prose is sound, the jokes do not occur frequently enough to hold the attention of the average reader throughout, try shortening some sections and totally removing others. If this does not appeal to you then try and include some more jokes in some sections, or changing some jokes, I personally did not find the red spot joke very amusing and thus got very bored reading the small paragraph devoted to it, please try to consider how somebody will react to a section devoted to a single joke if they don't find that joke amusing. Make the sections have more of a varied appeal by trying to include more jokes about different things, or by making them shorter. Also some sections feel very unnecessary, the politics section is far too long in my view, and is a prime candidate for editing.
Images:	9.5	The images are very good and compliment the text in a way that can make reading some of the more monotonous sections more appealing. The army section and the education sections were, in my view, the best ones. Plenty of pictures that just about save your article from drowning the reader in prose.
Miscellaneous:	8	My overall grade of the article.
Final Score:	40.5	Your article demonstrates very nicely the humour that can be acheived through a very encyclopedic perspective. The only issues are that the article is far too long to engage most readers all the way through, and some serious editing is needed to address this, and to try and avoid over reliance on one joke throughout entire sections. However if someone is prepared to devote time and effort to reading your article they will reap the rewards of doing so, your jokes are subtle and effective and intelligently written, they are just hidden under a lot of text. Good Luck editing and in whatever else you decide to do.
Reviewer:	--ChiefjusticeDS 21:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)