Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnNews:Uncyclopedia Cures Cancer (2nd Rewrite)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
UnNews:Uncyclopedia Cures Cancer [edit source]
Was reviewd by User:Modusoperandi I've rewritten on his advice so I've put it up for review again.—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 12:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 |
This article is under review by <font-weight:bold>Gerry Cheevers. Sayeth Gerry: shotgun!! |
| Humour: | 5 | well you've got some good stuff, but the article itself is hard to read and doesn't seem to run on any set course, meaning it tends to wander and not have the desired effect. the potshots at admins are unnecessary and not really funny. things like the admins doing drugs don't add anything to the story. i think it would be funnier if you left off the part about the gene manipulation and just focused on the tumor-huffing, that would fit in much better with uncyclopedia. the article is definitely improving, however, as i can see from the previous two reviews. you should take out the randomer things; as an unnews, the article is short and there's no need for such blindsiding name-dropping like jimbo wales. the list doesn't add much, it should definitely just be expressed as a sentence. you should focus on parts of your article such as the alligator/rubber band line and the 'people can smoke again' concept. i would change out alcohol with one or two more things that have higher risks of cancer, such as asbestos and massive doses of radiation, but i do like that idea. |
| Concept: | 7 | 5/5 for a good unnews idea; a solid source just asking for a parody.
2/5 points for execution. i really do think the article would be much better with a little idea-rearranging. take out the references to uncyclopedia admins, they really don't do too much for the article. if you focused on the huffing part more than the genes part then this could become a solid uncyclopedia in-joke related article, which is extremely hard to do. i see this as having two sections: the first describing the new method, and the second describing the consequences of living in a cancer-free world. |
| Prose and formatting: | 4 | your prose and formatting are rather bad. i'll give it a run-through. in the future you can call upon the proofreading service to help you with this stuff; instructions are on that page. the 'implications' header isn't really appropriate; for an unnews, length doesn't necessitate those kind of headers. you're okay to just have another paragraph. |
| Images: | 6 | the first one is good/okay. i couldn't tell it was a chop (or what it was) until i blew it up. the second one doesn't really fit. if you do go with my two-section approach, you could have an image of the consequences of a cancer-free world, like a guy smoking or something. |
| Miscellaneous: | 5.5 | averaged via magic |
| Final Score: | 27.5 | you've got the basis for a really good article here. your constant improval of the article encourgaes me; you haven't let low scores cause you to abandon the article or even the website in general, as we too often see on uncyc. i'm willing to give you any help you need in improving this article; i feel like with my suggestions and a little hard work it can be classified as a solid article. check out HTBFANJS, there's some great ideas there also. good luck, and don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions at all. |
| Reviewer: | 16:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | |
- Thanks for the review, will improve the article when I get home on this advice, I'm thinking of completely removing(replacing is the correct word) the second section because it doesn't tie in, I'll re-write the first on what you've said and try and make it flow, I've had flow issues with the other I have to re-write this weekend. Thanks for the review, its definately helpful. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 16:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)