Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnBooks:Fun Science Experiments for Kids
UnBooks:Fun Science Experiments for Kids[edit source]
This is an old one of mine. I think it could be highlight material, with a little fixing up. I'm mostly just asking for some ideas on where and how it could be improved. Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 04:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
| Humour: | 5 | Highlight material? I would say yes. It has got a bit of this and that here and there and quick grabs for a laugh. If you put it in VFH I am quite sure it will go onto the front page in no time - or will it? The first impression I got from this article was that I would be introduced to a book about science experiments for Frankenstein Jr. But, no, it turned out it was something about dead Nazis and right-wing Christian fundie nut-bars. It's like opening a pack of Doritos and getting nothing except burger rings. Hey, I thought I could teach my kids how to boil a raw egg with metal spoons in a microwave or pump nerve agents into a kindergarten full of puppies. Where is my money? I want it back...
That said, I think you have got some good ideas, but the stint just isn't there. Why would a dead Nazi (or whatever wacky, generic German character you are trying to allude to there) want to teach kids how to make a periscope when he could tell them the proper way send minorities and oppositions into a fun room that they called a "gas chamber"? And why would a Christian fundie even want kids to ponder on science when they could simply go around and shoot some nerds in white coats with rifles? I don't get it. This is just underwhelming and disappointing. |
| Concept: | 8 | Like I said, the concept is fine, but somehow the article just misses the plot by a biblical proportion. Think about what the word "unethical" implies. It's not just like, "Hey! Science proves that God exists." We know it doesn't, but do you really have to go through that length so as to turn your article into a one-trick pony just to get that one point across? And, really, how many versions of the same joke do people have to churn out until it finally hits the proverbial dead horse? This is not funny - it's boring. Don't tell me about God or religion. Tell me how to test anthrax on POWs. Tell me how to conduct studies on radiation sickness on my next-door neighbor without myself getting it. I want laughter, and I want the thrill and excitement - that's all. |
| Prose and formatting: | 7 | Not much to be said, except that the introductory part (one with the first-level title) seems to be a bit redundant and that the conclusion was not really constructed with anyone above 30 in mind. |
| Images: | 9 | How much good a science book can be without some hokey-looking scientists? That said, the last one is still a bit of a stretch. |
| Miscellaneous: | 8 | Funny series titles are good, although I tend to have a thing with the list format in this kind of context. |
| Final Score: | 37 | The article has a good concept, but it runs out of steam quickly after the introduction. The rest seems repetitive and too focused on pushing the same tired point by regurgitating it over and over again. |
| Reviewer: | JoeMonco 23:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |