Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/The Rough Guide to Gotham City
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The Rough Guide to Gotham City[edit source]
Apparently I can't spell, punctuate or format properly. Tell me what a retard I am after reading the latest bullshit
Sog1970 17:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Top of the morning to you citizen, within 24 hours we will have sorted all your review related trouser difficulties.--ChiefjusticeDS 08:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
| Humour: | 7 | Now, I thin referring to your work as bullshit is very harsh since it is reasonably enjoyable and has some reasonable humour. You do need to work on a couple of things. The first of the problems is the subtlety of the humour. Some of your jokes, namely those which say things like "marvel at how you were persuaded to part with $20.", are a bit too overt to work effectively. It would be far better if you explained enough about the attraction that the reader would be able to realise for themselves that it is a rip-off. Your style of humour does suit a slightly more overt style but there are limits to how far you should take this. Try to be overt with the point behind the joke but subtle with the joke itself. For example, in the above you would say "The waxworks contain some amazingly well modelled wax models. Reviews have said "There are a couple of less worthwhile things to do with money", "I wish I had stayed at the hotel" and "Someone stole my wallet!". While that may not have you rolling on the floor, clutching your sides with ceaseless mirth it still makes the point. You should also consider making more of the Batman angle, while you do play on it quite extensively, you never do so explicitly and, since people will recognise the name of the location from Batman then you may find people are disappointed that your references to the hero are relatively sparse. |
| Concept: | 8 | It is a pretty good concept and you carry it off with some degree of success. My advice as far as your tone is concerned is that you continue to write in the first person, but try to make the article more like an actual guide to a city, or attraction. To that end, remove any language that directly criticises any of the attractions or belittles them directly. Also, the profanity spells a quick end to any tone that attempts to inform from a position of authority. |
| Prose and formatting: | 5 | Your spelling and grammar do need some work but I have seen worse before. The best thing for you to do now is to proofread your article very carefully. If you have done so already and think that it is still in need of work, or you don't have the time or knowledge to do a completely thorough check then just place this template:{{Proofread}} and a member of The Uncyclopedia Proofreading Service will soon be along to assist you. Remember that you can help out and make things easier for yourself by reading aloud and identify the bigger trouble spots. As far as formatting goes you do reasonably well, just make sure the images don't squeeze the text into just going down the centre, consider removing a couple and moving them all to the right hand side. This would please strange people like myself (it would also make the text feel less crowded). Also try not to break the text too much as the article begins to feel disjointed. These issues are all generally minor and the formatting isn't bad overall. |
| Images: | 8 | Your images are pretty good, but you need to make sure the captions follow the text into any changes in tone or humour. The images themselves are fine and make plenty of sense, though you may want to consider removing, maybe one, as a couple feel less necessary than the others, when choosing which one should go be harsh with yourself, and use HTBFANJS if you are stuck. However your images are generally good and the above criticisms only lose you 1 mark, with formatting problems losing you the other one. |
| Miscellaneous: | 7 | My overall grade of the article |
| Final Score: | 35 | You have an article here that is certainly well on it's way to being excellent. Just make sure you continue your good work on this article, and you fulfil the potential it undoubtedly has. If you have any comments about the review then feel free to contact me on my talk page. Good luck making any changes. |
| Reviewer: | --ChiefjusticeDS 20:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |