Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Uncyclopedia Needs More Snakes
Uncyclopedia Needs More Snakes[edit source]
SadisticWolf 17:47, May 17, 2010 (UTC) talk page me when you've done. If you feel really generous, review my other articles too. :3
| Humour: | 9.0 | Hiya, SadisticWolf. Let's get down to business. I found this article actually quite funny. I'm not entirely sure why. I think it's the whole incongruous idea of a complaining snake. The whole thing took me by surprise, and I guess I couldn't help but laugh at the silliness of it (but silly is good for this article, so don't be insulted!).
One thing that earnt you points was that you didn't touch upon many of the pitiful Uncyclopedia in-jokes (Oscar Wilde quotes, grues, etc.)! This works in your favour because nowadays, Admins are constantly screaming their lungs out and beating their gorilla-like chests saying that new articles need to be different and unusual. I don't think they can fault this article for falling into the trap of mediocre in-jokes. Something that would make the article longer and (probably) funnier would be you expanding on why Uncyclopedia needs more snakes, instead of just sticking to the snake writing angry letters (this part is funny, don't get me wrong, but it would add a lot more meat to the thing). But with that said, you've done a good job of being funny here. |
| Concept: | 8.5 | When I saw the title of the article, I was thinking "What kind of concept is this??? This is surely the result of too much pot!" But I was pleasantly surprised as I read through it. As I said above, it's surprisingly original and is reasonably funny to boot. There is one thing I would suggest (and this is what stopped you getting 9+ for concept), and that is that you move this into the "Why?" series of articles on Uncyclopedia. I say this because on it's own, this article isn't really an encyclopedic-type article. I think it would make much more sense to readers if you add this to "Why?", you could title it something like "Why?: Uncyclopedia Needs More Snakes". It would just add context to the article, instead of it coming across as a random letter to the editor/admin. |
| Prose and formatting: | 10 | Nothing to complain about here at all. You use paragraphs, you don't vomit words out, you use appropriate parameters for subheadings and the like. I don't really need to say anything more. |
| Images: | 8.7 | For an article of this length, two pictures are great. The first picture is highly relevant, and it's got a good caption to go with it. But when I scrolled down the page, I laughed a lot. What a great use! This was one of the highlights of the article, and the caption was simple but effective.
However, if you do decide to expand upon the article, you'll undoubtedly need another picture or two. But I haven't marked you down for that. On the whole, you used images really well. Well done! |
| Miscellaneous: | 9.1 | Just your average mark for all four criterions. |
| Final Score: | 45.3 | So all in all, this is a pleasantly surprising little article. My main suggestions are that you move the article to the "Why?" section to add context and meaning for the article, and also to expand upon the actual reasons for why Uncyclopedia needs more snakes. This will provide more opportunities for jokes, and get your article to a respectable length.
Job well done, SadisticWolf. |
| Reviewer: | --Username18 08:43, June 6, 2010 (UTC) | |