Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Zheliel/Raffles Institution
User:Zheliel/Raffles Institution[edit source]
I saw RI was huffed so many times, so I said to myself - "I'll give it a go!" User:Zheliel/sigz2 11:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I would review this one.... but I have read the article so many times and still don't understand the concept or the institution that I thought it would be best left to someone else. Sorry for the lack of a review. --ChiefjusticeDS 20:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm in here Pup
| Humour: | 5 | I didn't find anything to laugh at in here. There was no punch and no giggle factor, nothing that I could really put a finger on in regards to HTBFANJS.
What I seemed to be waiting for while reading this is usage of misdirection, escalation, or understatement. There is a substantial amount of toilet humour in here. Nothing that is over the top or gross, but because it's overused it tends to be dull. Probably advisable to re-read The "@#$%^&*" Rule. Having said that there is the potential for some zip and sizzle in amongst what you have here. It's just that the joke starts, and just keeps ticking, but doesn't find its feet to be able to take it over the edge to the belly laugh. Also keep the joke consistent. Line 2 gives the name of the founder as Sir Stanford Raffles, which then becomes Sir Thomas Stamford Waffles, and then back to Sir Stanford Waffles. The "Waffles" joke falls flat, and the confusion of name is just confusing. The second paragraph starts off saying that "A. K. Sigamoney" doesn't want to comment, and then follows that by saying that of course he does. We firstly don't know who he is, and secondly don;t know whether he will talk or not. |
| Concept: | 6.5 | Given that you're taking up as a topic an article that has been huffed a few times in the past, there is something a little flawed in the concept here, but having said that there is a definite potential for something great in this article. The only thing I would say is that this may be better done "in the style of" than it is now, or done in an authoritarian voice, much the same as mentioned above. |
| Prose and formatting: | 5 | Hey guess what. I'm really lazy. No, seriously I am. I sat down and started to look at this article and though to myself "I can't be bothered going through and looking at all the spelling and grammar in here, so the first thing that I'll do is cut and paste the whole box and dice into an evil corporations word processing software to see what came out as grammatically incorrect or incorrect spelling. Now this should be one of the things that people do before putting their article up for a PEEReview. I have to confess I don't do this myself, but I have a plug-in with my browser that goes through my spelling, and a copy of "Elements of style" sitting on my bookshelf. (I've never opened it, but it makes me look smart having it there.)
Okay, so there were three or four spelling mistakes that weren't related to "created words" or proper nouns. There was also a few issues with grammar along the way (including the infamous "it's" to denote ownership.) So going on to the writing style. This falls short of an authoritarian voice, but rather comes across as a conversational style. Now here lies the fun part of the criticism. The first option that you have here is to amend the article so that it has a more authoritarian and scholarly tone. This means running it through a spell check, re-writing the stuff that sounds like you're chillin' with your homeboys, throwing it through to UN:PROOF, opening the "The Elements of Style." The second option is to turn this on its head and do the complete opposite. Make this an "in the style of" and do it so that it comes across as written either by one of the teaching staff or one of the alumni. This may seem like the easier option, but to do this in such a way that it shows that the mistakes are deliberate as opposed to accidental can be a little more difficult than you would expect. Now flicking away from the spelling and grammar, we'll have a quick look at format and overall appearance. The biggest issue that I have here, ignoring the lack of images or anything else to break this up, is the level 2 headers for everything, and the lack of sub-topics. Although you don't need to use subtopics for everything, in this case the article seems to be crying out to be laid out more like:
Further to this there are a few places where things are italicised and continue to be italicised where they shouldn't be, red links, capitalisation where there shouldn't be, or lack of capitalisation where there should be, header with nothing following, a list that would work better as an table (or maybe an infobox). And one other thing that bothers me is that the article starts off with a fair amount of detail and depth to each section, but as it goes along it seems to drop off dramatically. |
| Images: | 2 | Sorry, two images, one that looks like a photo of a school in the infobox, and the other that I'm going to avoid talking about, but I will say that it has brought the score for your images down rather than increasing it. What I'd like to see (stealing from your text) is:
|
| Miscellaneous: | 5 | This just doesn't seem to have the kick and bounce that there should be for an article like this. It isn't bad, but it just isn't good. There is a potential for a good article, but it does need a significant amount of work. |
| Final Score: | 23.5 | Also given the history of huffage, I'd probably take this away from the "real" institution and create an "alternate" institution like the "Waffles institution" and go from there, as it look as though as soon as you put this up there's a strong likelihood that that is the time that someone will go in and vandalise it or bring it back to a two sentence stub. |
| Reviewer: | Pup | |