Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Nameable/Severe Nasal-Specific Seborrhoeic Dermatitis
User:Nameable/Severe Nasal-Specific Seborrhoeic Dermatitis[edit source]
Would most like to know if this is anywhere near good enough for main space. Thank you. Nameable • mumble? • (UnScr:PWotM) 21:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm in here, but if you fancy doing a review then Staircase has just put Astronaut up for a second review and he needs someone like You --ChiefjusticeDS 06:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
| Humour: | 7 | OK, your humour isn't too bad, it just needs a bit of work. Your article is not boring but it lacks a laugh out loud quality to it. As far as humour goes the first thing to do is to reconsider a couple of jokes as some of them do not have the effect you were hoping for I suspect. The first part to take another look at is the Causes section, this section is vital to your article and thus it is vital that you get it right. The joke that the diesease effects conscious people has a good idea behind it but ultimately falls flat when you use it in the article, it would be better to say "this disease effects only a select group of people: Those who have blown their nose and then looked at the contents of the tissue and those who have ever blown their nose and not bothered to check out 'the cool green stuff'" While this is not humour of the highest order, it makes the point in a slightly more amusing way than simply using the blanket statement of "It effects conscious people". You touch on a better way of making the point later in the section so consider rewording.
You should also take a look at the prevention section, again the jokes here fall flat too, you should make sure that a punchline is not blindingly obvious. Saying to a reader that conscious people with noses are most likely to be effected so they should prevent the disease by being unconscious and noseless is obvious and as such not terribly funny in this form. As with the above you have the right idea about making the joke but the execution is carried out wrong, this has far reaching consequences considering the necessity of these sections to the article. Think about rewording this one too. |
| Concept: | 6 | The idea is one that is rarely written well on Uncyclopedia with disease articles rarely appearing on the front page, so it is refreshing to see you writing about it with some ability. However the key to writing well on a disease is to use the encyclopedic perspective very well and to be consistent with it. You use the perspective with some degree of success but you should make sure you are consistent. If you look at a Wikipedia article on a disease you will notice that the authors do not offer advice to the reader, they stick to offering information about the condition, you should aim to ape that style. Sections where you address the reader should either be removed or rewritten as they defeat the detached and professional tone you have established for yourself. |
| Prose and formatting: | 8 | This is OK, your spelling is fine and you should focus more on your grammar. You should have another look through the article, read it aloud to yourself and you will find a few errors in need of correction. Otherwise the text is broken up fine, but you should consider the size of some of your images, you have three, one of which is pretty big and the other two are pretty small. Perhaps you should consider addressing this balance. |
| Images: | 8 | Your images are pretty good, the image of the NHS slogan is particularly good and you should definitely keep hold of it. The other two are reasonable and by no means of damnably low quality, the captions of the last one making it much more worthwhile. What you should consider most of all is the first image, bear in mind that this is the first thing people will see when they arrive at your page and it should draw them in, as it is at the moment it doesn't really have that attention grabbing quality, do you think a better image than this one could be found? |
| Miscellaneous: | 7.5 | My overall grade of the article. |
| Final Score: | 36.5 | This is a reasonably solid article which definitely has the potential for excellence. You miss out because of minor problems across the board, sort these out and the article will be absolutely fine. It is definitely OK for main space, even without these additions, but it is up to you whether you want to make the changes before it goes to main space. Good luck with any edits. |
| Reviewer: | --ChiefjusticeDS 07:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | |