Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/The Logic Of Pokemon
The Logic Of Pokemon[edit source]
MaXDeAtH 11:32, September 23, 2009 (UTC)
- I think I'll be able to review this one sometime soon. Like probably this weekend. If anyone else wants it, feel free to take it. If not, I'll dust off my imaginary reviewing glasses in a very dramatic fashion before closely squinting my eyes at the screen, proving that the glasses do not work very well. In fact, they are for the most part useless and are most likely there to make me seem like a bit more of an intellectual, which may or may not work, depending on the perspective of the person viewing or reading about the event.
Don 
Puttano cHeDDs 
02:45,2October,2009
|
A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article is being reviewed by: UU - natter  (While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead). (Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole). |
Well, as Chedds didn't pick this up at the weekend, I'll take it. --UU - natter 18:04, Oct 5
| Humour: | 5 | OK, Hi there MaXDeAtH - mind if I call you Max? I'll explain first up that I treat 5 out of 10 as an average score, with over 5 meaning very good. So what we have here is an article with some funny, but not one that sets the world alight. Or at least, that's my normal take on this score. Here, it's slightly different: I think you've got some really good ideas here, you've just buried them under too much explanation. So I'm going to focus on what I think you need to do here: prune it back to allow the strongest stuff to shine through.
Take the intro, for instance - in the first three sections, this reads just like a Wikipedia article, no jokes, nothing to hook the reader, just a mass of explanation. If I hadn't been reviewing this, you'd have lost me by then, which would be a shame. So I'd look to cut most of that aside, and just explain that in this article, you're going to closely examine the internal logic of the popular Pokemon series of games. Providing a link to the Pokemon article takes care of much of your explanation, and if you've only used a couple of sentences, your audience is still with you and ready to see what the article has in store. And that's a good thing, in the main: obviously the Pokemon games offer plenty of opportunities for this sort of fun, so you have plenty of material, but you pick some good stuff - focussing on the fact that a 10-year-old is spawning little demons, indulging in what amounts to pit-fighting, kidnapping animals with strange equipment, unleashing powerful fire attacks and the like, all good ideas, and the kind of things you can have fun with. I do like the Slowpoke/Shellder section, although it could still do with being a little more snappy. But they're still buried in too much explanation, and in paragraphs that are too large. What you need to do here is be ruthless with yourself, and cut back on the needless explanation - see if you can say in one sentence what you currently say with 4, for example. The entire section about trainers and Gym Leaders and so forth next to the Obama picture can probably be condensed to two lines, to pick a specific instance. Find the funny - the points you're making about the game logic and its absurdity - and see how you can go about making those more of the focus of the paragraphs, and make your paragraphs shorter and punchier. I'd look to make a little more of the running joke you introduce later on about things being introduced no Nintendo could make a buck - that could be fun to toss around a little more. Maybe use footnotes for it - see the code of this page to see how I used this one[1]. Finally, you have your list at the end. Lists aren't all that popular here. I'd suggest looking to add those points (some of which are quite good) into the main article without using a list - it can quite easily be done, and it would mean that you can still have a decent size article when you've cut out all of the needless and boring explanation stuff. I would try to pick out the ones that can be easily explained to non-fans though - "Mr. Mime acts like a man and is therefore always called Mr. Mime, but there are female Mr. Mimes, which is probably illegal in several states", for instance, is easier for a non-fan to follow than "How can Gastly learn all the elemental punches despite an obvious lack of the necessary anatomy?" - what anatomy? I haven't a clue! |
| Concept: | 6 | I'm going to give you a 6 for concept, mainly because while you do have one, and there are times when you use it to good effect, it's buried under so much unnecessary explanation the poor thing is lost half the time. Follow the advice in the above section, and this score would increase too, as you let your idea shine! |
| Prose and formatting: | 5 | I'm gonna sound like a stuck record here: too much explanation, paragraphs are too large. I've already said that. What I haven't mentioned is the spelling and grammar. It ain't great. I'd give you examples, but I'd be here a while. I have two suggestions:
I will just mention that I think you need to spend a little time finding out how to use apostrophes, particularly with regard to plurals (no apostrophe in a plural!) and possessive (apostrophe "s" means "belonging to") because I am a hideous grammar Nazi - please don't be offended by this, just think of me as sad, and you'll probably be right! |
| Images: | 6 | Fine images, in the main. I'd leave out the one of Ash, partly because it doesn't add much, partly because homosexual jokes are old, boring, over-used and don't fit in with the rest of the article. Your captions aren't bad either (I like the last one), but given the length of the article, they get a little lost. You could stand to make them bigger, I think, and possibly add one or two more (don't go mad though!) If you can scroll your screen so you can't see any images on it, there's probably room for one more there - just a little rule of thumb for you. |
| Miscellaneous: | 5.5 | Averaged. |
| Final Score: | 27.5 | So, to sum up: a decent article, buried under too much needless explanation. Hack it back, concentrate on the funny ideas (but don't completely lose the explanation - it all has to make sense!) and you should have something very rare indeed: a decent Pokemon article!
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. Also, remember that this is only my opinion, others are available. and good luck! |
| Reviewer: | --UU - natter 18:49, Oct 5
| |
Sorry. I really did try to get around to it, but I didn't have the chance to get on the computer for more than like 5 minutes at a time this weekend. Still, UU's is probably better than mine would've been. 
Don Puttano cHeDDs 
19:40,5October,2009
- ↑ I did it like this - look to the bottom of the page to see the other bit of code that displays it later on