Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Tampa Bay Rays
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Tampa Bay Rays[edit source]
It's a rework that I scored for Der Unwehr. But Pee review it stand alone anyhow, don't let me influence you to review it in light of the rework and how shitty it was before. Don't let me control your behavior like that. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
--Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 02:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
| Humour: | 9 | I ,personally, like the humour you have used in this article very much, your style is subtle and engaging a strikes a very good tone. You have the third-person encyclopedic perspective pretty much sorted and your punch-lines are well executed. My only slight qualm with your humour is your lack of conviction for a couple of your points. Granted this is a satire and it is very difficult to combine humour and sarcasm with overarching conviction, but the very best uncyclopedia articles do so very well. If you take a look at Failure University you will notice that one of the main differences in your style is conviction. The author of Failure University reports any and all 'facts' about the institution with complete conviction and does not seem unsure. It seemed to me that at a couple of points in your article, you don't seem as sure of yourself as would be desirable. It is more amusing to say "Darth Vader built the death star with an array of amusing lift buzzers because he thought it was a good laugh" than "Darth Vader built the death star with some funny lift bells, probably because he thought it was funny". |
| Concept: | 9 | A reasonable concept with an appropriate tone, your witty and slightly despairing tone works very well for this type of article and I was pleased to see you avoid slipping out of the detached perspective that you establish at the start of the article. |
| Prose and formatting: | 8 | Your prose are generally fine. I would recommend that you reread your article carefully as some of your sentence structure is slightly confused. There are a few minor grammar issues beside that but most of these are me nit-picking. You format intelligently and paragraphs do not feel laborious to read and do not belabor points unduly. The image formatting is fine and you do well to encapsulate the catwalks point into the later image. |
| Images: | 9 | Your images are generally appropriate and compliment the text very well. They all feel necessary and your captions are well written. The images allow the text to flow and lend more meaning to what you are saying, as one would hope they would. My only complaint is over the 'End of the world series' image. While I see what you are saying with it, and why it is formatted as it is, would it be possible to make it slightly bigger? I ask this only because it is difficult to ascertain what the image is saying, on first glance, as it feels slightly cluttered. Otherwise there are no issues with your images. |
| Miscellaneous: | 9 | My overall grade of the article. |
| Final Score: | 44 | A very good article that falls short of perfection through a couple of small flaws. The style is very good and is carried off successfully. Ultimately I enjoyed reading this article, it amused me and it did not feel like an effort, nothing is expected to be perfect on here and it is always a good thing when I find myself mentally noting that you misuse a comma or that you put in a couple of typos, as it usually means I'm struggling to find anything concrete to be critical about. Any problems I have mentioned can be rectified in a matter of minutes, a good article, thoroughly deserving of a high score. |
| Reviewer: | --ChiefjusticeDS 09:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | |