Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:UNmarine777/The Great War of Armagedden
User:UNmarine777/The Great War of Armagedden[edit source]
vladimirKruscecev 23:42, July 18, 2011 (UTC)
- I'll review it. Just give me a day or two --
20:34, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
| Humour: | 4 | Although this article definitely has potential, you rely on random humor frequently, which isn't always exheedingly funny. I highly recommend HTBFANJS. Now lets take a look at the article section by section.
The quotes: Not really necessary and the Oscar Wilde one is very cliche. I would recommend removing them or at least the Oscar Wilde quote. Prelude: This seems very random. Why are there billions of n00bs in a bathroom? Since it so obviously can't be true, it just makes it confusing instead of funny. Also tone it down on the swearing. Swears don't necessarily make something funny. For example, the line, "Who the fuck left a piece of shit in the goddamn toilet?" could be funnier if written along the lines of "Who left a dump and stunk up the place?" This isn't really funny, but it's just an example. Sometime later: Again, you seem to use random humor in this section. Also, try not to be so blatant about sarcasm. The line "...killed some pee reviewers thats why your article never got a chance the result was that it would stop production of good articles" could be funny if you made the joke more subtle. And try to be less cliche like when you said their heads asploded War begins: As I said before about being more subtle, the parts with the pictures could be very funny if it was only more subtle. The part with the tweets was just random and confusing. You should probably just get rid of it. UN intervention: The idea about how different parts of uncyclopedia were being captured by different countries could be very funny if you put more time into it. Try giving examples of why a certain country would capture a certain section of uncyc. Example: The French captured failed feature nominations because they both feel like they're important when they're not (Only write it in a more subtle way, I'm just making this up off the top of my head) Plan goes wrong: Again, very random and confusing. This section requires either a rewrite or just delete it. Battle at the barriers and Aftermath: More randomness. Definitely needs a rewrite, but don't be discouraged, this article can be turned into something great. |
| Concept: | 7 | The idea of an uncyclopedia war is very good, just poorly executed. Try focusing more on the uncyclopedia aspect of it then on random political statements. This article has a ton of potential and adding in more stuff about uncyclopedia going to war with the world could be very, very funny. You might want to change the name to something that concentrates more on uncyclopedia though. |
| Prose and formatting: | 2 | The biggest problem with this article is the way it is written. Your grammar, spacing, and spelling is incorrect most of the time. Even the name is spelled wrong (it's spelled Armageddon). You definitely want to fix this since it makes the article confusing and hard to read. In addition, you seem to talk to the reader in the first person. This works in some articles, however, it doesn't seem to really work very well with your theme. Try and make it seem more like a wikipedia article. Read actual wikipedia articles or other uncyc articles for reference. |
| Images: | 5 | The pictures aren't bad, but it would be funnier if you incorporated uncyclopedia into the pictures. For example, show the logo being bombed by a plane or something like that. If you can't edit the photos yourself, ask others to edit them for you. |
| Miscellaneous: | 4.5 | Used Template:Pee to average your score. |
| Final Score: | 22.5 | Overall, the article needs a lot of work but has great potential. Keep working on it and don't get discouraged. If you have any questions, leave a message for me on my talkpage (However, I can't use my computer during August so i might not be able to respond if you leave a coment too far towards the end of July or in the month of August itself) |
| Reviewer: |  21:23, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
| |