Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:MacMania/Physics

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

User:MacMania/Physics

Started a replacement for Physics from scratch. Feel free to throw it in the next Mars probe that completely fails to land properly, but at least please give it some comments, suggestions, etc first—the usual deal— Sir MacMania GUN—[23:50 2 Aug 2010]

Ooo! I wanna review this. But I'll do it later. 24 hours, give or take a timezone... and you shall hopefully get some coherent impressions. Although I'll say right now that it looks to be a vast improvement over the current physics. ~ Arajlas *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100809 - 15:00 (UTC)

Humour:	8	Fizzy drinks are good... until they fizzle up one's nose. Which begs the question... might physics fizzle up someone's nose? Or perhaps it does it all the time and nobody notices... Eh, not the point. Sections... since my overall impression seems to have wound up in the concept section... Teaching people to be lunatics seems a little odd. Are they really potential lunatics? Would not lunatics actually go to learn this? Or are they just general lunatics? The obliviousness is a good move, but this is by no means limited to physicists... or even scientists, for that matter. Just saying. Method - I like how it's a question that not only can't be answered, but also has little application, unlike something involving bureaucracy which just can't be answered and would be much too practical for a scientist... because as you say, common sense is no good. Glorious. A 'reasonable explanation' when the entire process is nearly devoid of reason according to the article... irony. And then it gets into the unreasonable part and it fits together. Seeing how wrong... if not wrong, someone else proving it wrong would perhaps be a better way of putting it. Then you could mention how proper physicists don't let it get to them because they know the other one will also get proven wrong, anyhow, or something... History - pig latin... eh, but it fits. The four elements later became the states of matter, though, so was he really that wrong about that? Nice examples. Newton's 'but only somewhat completely' - well said. The schoolchildren bit is well-known, indeed, and may both draw in and alienate people, depending on whether they prefer originality or familiarity... until you bring in Shakespeare. Makes it something special. Einstein's claim to relativity - everybody knows it, what claim does he have... this seems a little overdone, to me. Forced, if you will. Unlike the rest of the article, this part questions something... why? Also, the two most self-defeating moves are confusing, since one says it may be and one says it probably is depending on this function... Final unity - If the physicists lose their jobs, who will prove it all wrong?
Concept:	8	I like how instead of how scientists are supposed to be the most rational people (though not necessarily sane), especially physicists who rely on mathematics so extensively, this takes the insanity and then changes the overly rational to irrational. Strangely, it's not a huge leap, which makes it even funnier. And the all getting proven wrong is nice. Correct as things may be by current standards, everything else certainly has been proven wrong... I guess I'm just waiting for science to prove the tendency for science to be proven wrong wrong.
Prose and formatting:	6	Yeah, so... you have too many commas. Some of them should be removed for improved grammartikal correctness and readibilirty. Also, when listing things, there need only be commas between the items not separated by the and. Putting one there too just looks silly. In the Make further observations section, do you really mean peruse, or pursue? Could have easily been a typo, so... Perform an experiment - the first sentence is grammatically ambiguous. While from the context it's apparent that it means to then immerse since it is hopeless, it tripped me up thinking it was just an expansion on the hopelessness at first... In the scientific process section, it suddenly switches from third to second person as if the reader was actually following the process. Why would it be doing that? I thought the section was just to explain how unreasonable scientists and especially physicists are... And really, contractions? That's mighty unprofessional. I'm excused here because this isn't an article, of course, but that is. You sure say 'for instance' a lot. And 'in addition'... Overall, though, the encyclopedic tone makes for a wonderful piece of utter and not entirely complete misinformation. I'd say complete, but there really is some reality to some of it. Scary... Although... 'until it gets proven wrong'? Surely there could be a better word than 'gets'... seems too casual and unedumacated to me. Or was that intentional? I guess this really doesn't matter, since it's just personal taste, though.
Images:	6	Well, the images themselves are nice enough. It's just the captions that bother me. Use of the first and second person doesn't really fit with the tone of the article, and why what does a vested interest in Einstein's hair have to do with anything? Especially since that is the only use of the first person in the entire article... Perhaps I'm just missing something, but Newton's makes no sense, especially considering the link. Yet the periodic table and the black hole one, those are just so perfect, captions and all... eh, I dunno.
Miscellaneous:	7	Numbah!
Final Score:	35	I would love to see this replace the current physics. It's a wonderful file of quasi-nonsense with just enough facts to it to... well, something. Hopefully this hastily cobbled-together-after-the-last-minute review will help, too...
Reviewer:	~ Arajlas *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100810 - 16:23 (UTC)