Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Solvent

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Solvent

silicson 01:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll reviw this, for now enjoy Noel. — Sir Sycamore (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A Free Coupon For a bumming session with Noel Fielding

Humour:	6	Reasonbly good here, I did not find the idea or the contnet to to be far off - The formating and structure is a little though. Intro: Fine, I felt that it lack sme impact, and did not draw me in. blocky pargraphing is something to avoid, split it up a little. Lots of comma use - I'd try more with flowing sentences as it's better for people to read. A bit random - random is rarely funny - having a focused piece of work amuses people a lot more. The old motto of say it, say it more and say it again stucture wise is a good one. 1st section: Good idas here, a little bogged down by randomness again - I'd try and ahve a more consistnet stain. You also sound a little too much like a "talking to you first person article" - very few writers on hee can write like that well - I'd try and write more like an authority on the subject - sort of essay like - this can make the humour value come out a lot more as readers are half tempted to belive you. Nice use of sub sections, I don't like the titles - maybe more like "early solvents", "Solvents in Middle times of some kind" and "Solvents in recnet years." Soe red linkage, and lack of images here, some of the ones further lbelow shold be moved up to here. 2nd Section: Seems a little scrappy here, lists are pretty discousged. You also have a few images whih don't fit in and screw up the formating, check out Oscar Wilde to get an idea of formatting. Seems to have a lot focus here - again rewroking inot paragrpahs will help as its easer to edit from that point. I felt myslef a little lost here - I'm not fully certain of what you're on about. I would try and make it look a little more like a wikipedia article and have it tidy. 3rd section: Short, and theres a problem with spacing throughout. Ending on a singl sentece like that is a little crappy for a conclusion - I would expand this and tid it up. Maybe lead on and re-iterate the intro. Not really funny, it just feels a little random.
Concept:	6.5	Difficult one to work - any topic can be funny, it's a question of the angle you go from. Here I think some history parodies are very possible. I quite like the way the film Fight Club plays around with chemestry - you could mayeb have a diverse range of uses covered by experts etc. It's all about time and coherency - i think that it requires more work but it is soemthing that could work quite well.
Prose and formatting:	6	Rough cut, sometimes you don't space words or comas or misuse of CAPS which looks bad. Some sections seem to go off in a tangent like "Fast Sucksesion" Also some words that do not exist "Idiap"? I could nt pick for a while - ususlay the bulk of these issuies seem to dies down a fair bit once you have got down what you are trying to say. I have a feeling that you might need to ind that still with this. Images per say should be space thorughout an article not just the bottom, I usually advise aliging right and keeping them at an equal distance throughout the article. It looks pretty ugly, I also have thema little bit bigger than wikipedia articles, as our purpose is to be funny and to amuse - so a greater emphaiss is on impact.
Images:	6.5	Nothing looked to bad here - nothig special, many of the captions seem a little random again as well as the relevence of some of the images. I feel that greater work on the content and formatting will allow for changes here - I advise that you spend time on that and then worry more about images.
Miscellaneous:	6.5	Intailly - needs a bit of time and a more polish. Random humour tends to work less well - its better to have a coherhent parody throughout an article. We've got a page on how to do this well here. Again good stuff does not overnight but usually requires a little time to get to be really funny.
Final Score:	31.5	I hope I've been able to help if theres anything, do not hesitate to contact me on my talkpage:)
Reviewer:	— Sir Sycamore (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)