Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Sycamore/Back to Basics (quick)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
User:Sycamore/Back to Basics[edit source]
I think is could to with a quick going over, I don't think an in depth review is required, just a look an any pointers. It's hopefully funny in a more dry way, and I've tried to keep it lean and sharp so that more people will enjoy it. Thanks for taking a look:-)--Sycamore (Talk) 18:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm if only writing quick on the articles meant anything these days. I have moved yours up my list of stuff to do because I am a professional (obviously) and because you asked so nicely. --ChiefjusticeDS 19:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
| Humour: | 7 | The humour isn't too bad, as a student of politics, I laughed a couple of times. While I think you can't make the article more accessible without defeating the point I think a couple of the jokes could be reconsidered. As I see it, in order to make the article more 'lean and sharp' you have lost some of the political satire that I particularly enjoyed. I think the balance is the issue here be careful to keep it amusing for people who keep up with politics and still amusing for those who have heard of the campaign on Wikipedia and wanted to see if we had anything. The article is either obvious "More chinless Etonian wanks" or employs satire "The campaign focuses on perceived deviant sexual practices and the evils of single Mothers along with widespread unemployment." The differences are rather jarring, this is really a case of you can't have your cake and eat it, the article can be accessible but it can't cater for both the politically adept and inept without sounding disjointed or confusing. |
| Concept: | 8 | I like the idea behind the article, John Major and the conservatives being some of my favourite political punching-bags. You execute the idea reasonably, the above comments aside, but should definitely consider reworking the tone. Remember, an article like this should be told from an informative perspective that at least sounds professional, some seemingly unneeded profanity and the occasional error interrupt an otherwise pleasing tone. Just make sure you remember to justify things you make up and that you consider being slightly more eloquent when it comes to insults or profanity opportunities. |
| Prose and formatting: | 7 | Some careless spelling and grammar errors hurt your score here, but they are not so bad as to effect the entire article adversely. Just proofread it carefully, I know it's dull and time consuming and I am the only person who regards it as a real good time but you will reap the rewards. Mainly you need to have a look at the bottom paragraph, perhaps it is just my browser but all the edit links are run into one another in the final paragraph making it difficult to read |
| Images: | 9 | They are fine, and I especially like the mock game cover, I felt harsh giving this a 9, but it didn't scream 10 at me either, my impulse was 9 so it stays there. It is mostly because I feel that the first image could be slightly more relevant, this is only my opinion, however, and you don't have to change it. Otherwise these are OK as they are. |
| Miscellaneous: | 7 | My overall grade of the article. |
| Final Score: | 38 | The article is pretty good, and this review was pretty strict, you should go back and reconsider some points before you consider doing anything else. If you have any questions then do not hesitate to visit my talk page where I field all review inquiries.
NB: Sorry for your wait for a quick review. The queue is moving slowly right now and nobody is updating Cajek's list these days. |
| Reviewer: | --ChiefjusticeDS 20:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | |