Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Lakepoint/Dawn of War 2
User:Lakepoint/Dawn of War 2[edit source]
It's been a while since I injected some worthless megabytes into this wasteland website. So here's some. This is actually a sort of half-completed work-in-progress thing but it is already so long that you might get lost once you're inside. That's ok though, I am asking for a review because I could use some insider information and if you're lost, you'll know what's going wrong. The more you fix, the closer you'll get to home base.
Also, feel free to make some unwarranted changes, especially with the picture positioning and stuff. If I don't like them, I'll just chop your tooth in half. Savvy? Thanks. Lakepoint 09:54, July 18, 2011 (UTC)
- I shall review this. Shall be done shortly. I hope. ~
17:06, 5 September 2011
| Prose and formatting Appearance, flow, overall presentation...
| |
| Heya, hope you'll still be around to see this at this point. Bloody queue got rather ridiculous; nobody reviewing and such. Anyway, I'll just start where it starts...
So the first thing that strikes me about this is it's just so long, or at least the table of contents is. This is because it's effectively a giant list - there's so much on the characters, and so many headers, when that's exactly the sort of thing that's not likely to mean much to the average reader, ie someone who's not familiar with the thing. Keeping it more prose-like will help, without going into such excess detail. Don't get me wrong, mind, details are good... but too many and it'll just wander off with a life of its own, rather like your table of contents has - I'll try to get more into what you'll want to keep and what you'll want to toss in the humour section, but for an idea of what I mean, try looking at some of our featured articles (or even at some of wikipedia's featured articles) - they're usually laid out fairly well. Basically, though, Having a thing about the Space Marines and one about the Orks is good; having sections about each individual one, not so much, and subsections for each of their traits is kind of a no-no. We're not here for a compare and contrast, we're here to be amused, so just go into the best bits of them to highlight whatever your main point is (again, I'll get to that later). No need to keep the quotes or smaller lists, either. The dialogues, again, should illustrate your main point or not be there; like quotes and lists and too many headers, they're somewhat dangerous, tend to break up the flow of things. Just converse naturally and it should help, and use an encyclopedic (or not, if you want to take it in another direction; just be consistent about it) tone and it should help. You've probably guessed already that it needs links; if you're unsure what to link, I'd suggest words that tie into the overall theme of the thing. You can also use the links to make jokes - linking to some pun, or some such, or what you really mean when you say something. Images and white space would be another thing to be careful about - be consistent about them. Not only do images illustrate the piece, they also make it look better in general, but at present you only have three, and in the same section. What you'll probably want is more, and to spread them out fairly evenly throughout the piece. Lead with an image, perhaps even end with an image. Likewise, keep your whitespace consistent. It can also be used to help make the images balance more, so that's also something to consider, but don't overdo it as you seem to toward the end (especially where the sections aren't filled in, although that's more because the sections aren't filled in than anything else, obviously). Usually two line breaks between sections unless you have something to emphasise, though. Also, I'd suggest not using h1s (single = headers) in the body of your article, as that's what the title is - use ==h2s== for the sections, ===h3s===, ====4s====, =====5s===== etc for subsections... tends to look better that way. | |
| Humour The implementation, how funny the article comes out...
| |
| You have a fair amount of variety here, but I'd say what probably works the best is the stuff that reads encyclopedically, so if I were you I'd probably focus on that, and on making the rest fit with that.
The introduction starts off pretty reasonably - it's silly, in a way, but it presents both concept and decent jokes. What you could do to improve this, however, is introduce more - general basics, what happens, what it's like, how it came to the public, that kind of thing. Overview, basically, making it believable. You could even merge the Scenario section into that, but regardless, they way that one reads is so completely different, you'll need to do something to it. Make it make sense with the intro, firstly - it's a training scenario set 37089 years in the future? It's also very... excitable, which really doesn't work that well for the piece. Keep going with the 'credible narrator' voice you had going. You know how to make decent jokes, so make them more subtle and have them fit better and the entire thing will come across a lot more effectively. Also, it'd help if it actually explained the scenario, as getting into the characters I really have no idea what's going on. This could also be helped in these sections as well, mind - explain who the belligerents are before going into them - is that a title the warring factions have earned for themselves, as the capitalisation suggests, or are they just the ones who happen to be fighting in the... training simulation? What's the history? How'd they get there? What's the United States Military's interest? As for the details of folks in it, everything you say should have a reason for being there, either tying into overall concept or making individual jokes, or better yet, both. The silliness I'd say works - to an extent. One bone in their body, what is that, a cost-cutting attempt? It really does sound like something a military would try, too, so I'd say that works quite well, unlike the very large numbers you used, such as saying how fast they run... nonsense numbers, we tend to call those. If you do want to make a point about them moving quickly, a comparison or example might work better - for instance, saying they run down spaceships or something (especially if they really do do that sort of thing in the game). Saying things are unknown doesn't really do much; encyclopaedias tend to be more about what's known, so stick to that... I'm also not sure if this section is really the best place for plot elements. Perhaps putting overall plot for everyone in its own section might work better, if it's linear enough... and if it's not, it's even more likely to confuse people regardless of where. Special abilities, quotes, etc would do better worked into the main descriptions of the characters. Going into each character all all may not even be necessary; could just call out exemplary ones, and say how others are similar or different, but regardless they probably don't all need their own sections. What's with the 'if you're using Firefox'...? That's not very encyclopedic, and really, isn't the point of an article to be read? Also, the <font> tag is deprecated, so that may be why it works inconsistently. The end would probably make more sense if it followed a single more structured plot overview, and it would flow better in general, so that might be something to consider. I do like the aftermath bit, though. Could mention it more specifically as being a 'sequel', though. | |
| Concept The idea, the angle, the grand funny of the article...
| |
| As you've probably figured out by now, I'm not at all familiar with the game itse... er, that is, with this training simulation itself, but that shouldn't matter, as Uncyclopedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, if not exactly an... accurate one. Just lay out what's going on, or rather, your version of it. I rather liked the notion of it being an actual military training simulation, after all, so if you do play with that throughout the thing, as I hope you will, it could prove quite interesting. Whatever you do, however, stick to what you introduce. | |
| Images The graphics themselves, as well as their humour and relevance...
| |
| The images you have, the first two are good - illustrate what the space marines are like. More of that sort of thing for the rest of it would be nice. Just illustrate what you're saying, perhaps tie them in even more and make jokes with the captions - maybe something about movement speed without armour in the one, or something. That kind of thing, expand upon the prose.
The other image is a decent pun; it can work, but you want to be careful with that. Basically, don't do that too much, or something. | |
| Miscellaneous Anything else... or not...
| |
| Obviously this is a work in progress, so the numbers probably aren't the most meaningful anyway, but hey. Number! | |
| Final score ~
 17:59, 5 September 2011 | |
| Here you go, mon... a review. Sorry it took so long for it to get a look at, but hopefully that won't put you off; you may have a ways to go from the point it's at, but there's definitely potential here, and this could turn out quite good if you keep working with it, cut out what you don't need, be consistent, etc, stuff.
Anyhow, I hope this review helps, and good luck. |
