Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Uncyclopedia Transit Authority
Uncyclopedia Transit Authority[edit source]
This article stops at Pee Review. Please validate your satires before typing.
| King Joseph | Talk | 01:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'll publish a review this evening. --Nachlader 11:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
| Humour: | 2 | This is given a 2 rating, not for the content, but for the idea of taking another article and replacing certain words with different ones. There is a difference between parodying something and making an article about it, and making the same joke as something else only with different words, but is pretty much the same thing anyway, same point, same joke, same content. That's sporking to another level. It doesn't make a fresh article, not one bit.
It's bad enough that this article, Uncyclopedia Transit Authority is a copy of Wikipedia Transit Authority, but the latter article recently underwent an unsuccessful VFH nom. Even worse is that I voted against the article becoming VFH, upon the reason that I find the article vastly boring. I wouldn't think that another version of the article would be any better. Even worse is that the same person who nominated the article in the first place, in turn, wrote this UTA article, Joe9... something. Even EVEN worse is that the last time I reviewed one of his articles, I tried to put it forward to VFD but was denied by PEE guidelines. The PEE guidelines have remained the same, so I can't put this one towards VFD as well. So because of the rather illegitimate nature of this article's existence compared to it's Wikipedia counterpart on Uncyclopedia (I could be wrong, I don't own this site, after all), I'm going to offer suggestions that could be used by the author in future projects. Even though I did this before in the last article of his that I reviewed. Ach. |
| Concept: | 2 | It's not a concept. If it was an attempt at an in-joke, then it's certainly not won me over. And I love all of the Uncyclopedia in-jokes (that I'm aware of). If someone saw AAAAAAAA and thought it might be funny to make a parody article called BBBBBBBB (actually, I wouldn't be suprised if this has been done before), I would've understood what they were coming from (in fact, I would be slightly inclined to keep the article from deletion). However, Wikipedia Transit Authority is somewhat of an awkward article for me. It looks... Really nice, quite well organised and some lovely looking tables, but uh... Boy, is it weird to read. Too complicated to be funny, it's the sort of boring, dull, stuffy and tedious formatting that I find at Wikipedia. The concept for that article is complicated too.
This is advice I remember giving last time; it's all very well if you see an article you like on Uncyclopedia and it inspires you to contribute to the project yourself, however; don't copy the same idea, word to word, with "added gusto" which doesn't make a difference anyway. |
| Prose and formatting: | 3 | Most of the content is just the same as the WTA article, only with "Wikipedia" and other related words and projects replaced with "Uncyclopedia" and other related words and projects. As well as some Filipino references to go along with your origin of birth.
I really don't know what I'm supposed to say here. The prose is the clinical part of the copy+pasta nature of the article... So don't copy+pasta other articles, I guess? The genius behind a beautiful prose and style of writing is hidden within the writer's freedom to create. If I had to copy someone else's work and put a few edits in, I would find my creativity limited, and therefore the independent genuity of my writing style would not be evident. This is one of the reasons that seeing the same thing over and over isn't fun. I wouldn't find it fun either. Most people don't like seeing others being shot, and the executioners may be just as reluctant, very much in the same regard as a writer being forced to produce bad prose. I'd rather have to execute people. You created some content here. Why didn't you bother just adding them to the original WTA article? |
| Images: | 4 | Some new images. Not really much to shout about, even if they are in their masses, although I know this to be a common trait of yours.
I don't know what to suggest here either. You used a lot of images here. If an article has way too many images, it will become cluttered, and the content that you spent all night typing up (not in this case though) will almost certainly be ignored by readers. The article will also be branded an image whore. Images are nice and they are good on the eyes, but too many just ruins articles, and ruin the entire site. |
| Miscellaneous: | 2.75 | Uh... Average'd. |
| Final Score: | 13.75 | You could produce far better articles with your time compared to this. Good luck in your next article. |
| Reviewer: | --Nachlader 20:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |