Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:MacMania/2001: A Space Odyssey (2nd review)
User:MacMania/2001: A Space Odyssey[edit source]
A bit too ambitious, perhaps?
Sir MacMania GUN—[01:41 18 Aug 2009]
| Humour: | 7.5 | Okay, let's see. I gave this article a 7.5, which stands for "a little better than a merely solid article, but not yet good enough to rate 'very good.'" This means that as a rewrite, you are finished. You have dramatically improved the original article. However, if you're hungering for something more, like a feature, you will need to step it up a notch.
For starters, the opening is very, very nice. I like how you use pictures in the article (I'll talk more about that in the images section). But after the initial DAA DAA, I think the image use becomes excessive. I think the problem lies in the concept, so I'll talk about the bulk of it there. Moving on. The article doesn't really start until that pic of the lady with the weird headgear, who is not even mentioned in passing. (I'm so disappointed.) The back-and-forth between the characters is alright, but nothing really stands out so far. When you get to the Jupiter mission, here is where your writing starts taking off. This section provided the most laffs. After that, the part after the intermission seems sort of weak. It feels like a direct spork of the movie with too few commentaries interspersed. The "Jupiter and beyond the infinite" section is good, but I don't think you convey how flippin' long the psychedelic acid trip part was in the actual movie. It took like, ten whole minutes in the movie, but it doesn't seem as long in the article. I also enjoyed the "wait for it..." line. The theories section starts out strong, but ends weakly in my eyes. I believe this is so because of the "two buddies" format - I think it could be avoided if the style were encyclopedic. |
| Concept: | 5 | Alright, the reason I gave the concept such a low score is that I think you're undercutting yourself. While the two buddies talking about the movie approach works on a basic level and does provide a few laughs, I think that the article could be much funnier if presented in an encyclopedic tone (you know, with a plot section, a characters section, a theme section and so forth). The talking buddies bit limits you in the sense that the main points/jokes are spread out making them not as effective. This is my only real problem with the article. |
| Prose and formatting: | 9.8 | The prose is typical of you, Mac, which means it's very nice. Nice pacing, for the most part, and your writing excellently carries your witty observations. On formatting, there is a minor hiccup. The images don't look so great with the thumbnail and no caption. I would suggest leaving out the |thumb| part in the image files. That way you'll just have the bare picture with no distracting thumbnails. (For pics with captions, go ahead and leave them the way they are.) |
| Images: | 8.5 | The articles are the crux of this article, and you excel at them. I think that perhaps you overdo them a little bit: you could cut back and still have the desired effect. That and the formatting issue net you an 8.5 score. |
| Miscellaneous: | 7.7 | Avg'd via {{Pee}} |
| Final Score: | 38.5 | I like this article and hope it succeeds. Also, you got my vote for WotM next month. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 02:42, Aug 24 |
| Reviewer: | • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 22:26, Aug 23 | |