Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:MacMania/Red Dwarf (2nd review)

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

User:MacMania/Red Dwarf

NOTE: Consider this to be of lowest priority on the queue. Anything else on the queue takes precedence above this. Go ahead, review anything else at all unless you really, really need to review this.

Improved thanks to WHY???'s fantastic Review, but Mr Flibble would be very cross if I didn't submit this for another one before moving it to mainspace. Sir MacMania GUN—[20:21 7 Sep 2009]

ANOTHER More pee?? Why? Nominated for feature!--Funnybony 20:43, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

Has since been taken off; any takers? Sir MacMania GUN—[06:06 6 Oct 2009]

Well, I couldn't review this because it all seemed right. If it's right, then it's right. I would like to renominate (unless somebody can find faults and write a review). But it seems like there are so many pee reviews back-logged that if an article is really good than just Nominate, and put time into reviewing the poor ones that need it. Specially considering this has already had Pee Review. Can I renom?--Funnybony 22:10, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of moving this to mainspace—not finished moving it yet, by the way, and apparently I'm having some issues. As soon as this gets to mainspace, I'll nominate it unless I forget to, but you can certainly do so as soon as the rewrite moves out of userspace. In the meantime, though, I think I'll just leave this here, but I'll add some sort of disclaimer on top. Thanks! Sir MacMania GUN—[22:54 11 Oct 2009]

Mr Flibble's very cross with us now. Sir MacMania GUN—[07:42 12 Oct 2009]

Humour:	5	Yeah, it's slightly amusing, but that's more because of the references to the show than due to how the article actually put it. See next section.
Concept:	3	The problem of this article is that it simply does not know what it wants itself to be - a Wikipedia entry, or an Uncyclopedia one. Having read through your piece a few times, I am still not entirely sure it actually contains more than just trivia for the TV series. Yeah, the show has this and that characters doing this thing and and that thing, but so what? Why should I care about all those at all in the first place? Don't get me wrong here - I have seen the show (or a few episodes of it, at least), and I am fairly certain of what it is all about. But even given that, I still have trouble finding out what this article is trying to deliver aside from those bits and pieces mundane facts. Here is an idea - why not try and discuss how blatantly low-budget the show is, how indistinct and uninteresting the characters are, how some sci-fi cliches are regurgitated rather than lampooned and how it follows every single part of the British comedy formula without the slightest deviation (i.e. to quote someone else - "dry and deadpan, or over-the-top, full of slapstick and cross-dressing"). I guarantee any of these things will give your readers a better experience than what you are offering now.
Prose and formatting:	6	Generally OK aside from a few issues: The first paragraph is just irrelevant to the rest of the article - get rid of it. The frequent strike-outs are simply annoying; so are the needless red links. Having all the images on one side makes the article look cramped and uncomfortable.
Images:	6	Being relevant is one thing, but being outstanding is another. Yes, I know most, if not all, of these pictures has something to do with the article itself to some extent, but, like they say, a picture is supposed to be "worth a thousands words". Yours, on the other hand, are probably worth fifty words each if not less on average. I can't tell you what exactly you should put there instead, but try and extend the idea of the first image to the rest others, and you should be able to get a pretty impressive result.
Miscellaneous:	5	Averaged.
Final Score:	25	Just follow what has been mentioned above, and you should be fine.
Reviewer:	The Colonel (talk) 17:33, October 12, 2009 (UTC)