Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Don't we do it in the road? (quick)
Why?:Don't we do it in the road?[edit source]
I finally finished this one, I think. Mostly, I want to know: does it work for you? Is the formatting ugly on your monitor? Do you think it's done? Cheers! 
pillow talk 19:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I saw you doing this one, I'll have a wee look for you:)--Sycamore (Talk) 11:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
| Humour: | 6.2 | Alright, I would say that it reads awkwardly - feels like there’s a few too many tangents justifying the title question, not enough detail - I would try and expand it a little more to correct this (though this is a weakness of the Why? namespace). Its a weakness of the article that it keeps reading like each new section is a response to the title question, I think this seems awkward to me - despite the article having a lot of potential outside of the structure its in - I would consider renaming and maybe have it like a letter by the Transportation secretary in government - this would allow you to bring the elements in more smoothly, and add to the humour of the article.
Some of the prose is pretty bad - this is something that can only corrected with time and effort "we feel that we can confidently provide not one but several reasons that we do not do it in the road" this is a little repetitive, there are a few like "has overlooked functions, such as, for example, brushing one's teeth or washing dishes" maybe should red like "...overlooked daily functioning such as brushing teeth and washing dishes" - little things like can stick out, I would not use the "one this or that" it reads badly. Another is "It is extremely hard, and has an uneven surface. It has a tendency to become painfully hot in the summer and icy in the winter." maybe should read a bit more like "Asphalt is extremely hard, and has an uneven surface. It also has a tendency to become scorching hot in the summer and icy in winter." As you suggested it does look a little ugly, I think image 2 and three are little weak - I think that its into really subtle enough - its kind of in your face about shagging in the road - I think I would probably make some broader issue embedded within it - I'm guessing you are from America - you could maybe have a gibe about the Patriot act insisting on information about how people are behaving (screwing) in the street - just something to broaden it out whilst keeping focus. |
| Concept: | 5.7 | Not bad - I think the Why namespace is by far the most difficult namespace to work within - keeping a consistent thread and flow is a lot harder. I would say that it’s alright though - it comes a little of the press - I would spend more time letting it come together. No major complaints about the concept |
| Prose and formatting: | 5.7 | Obviously it reads like a list of reasons which is not the best it could be, I've gone through that a lot of the prose reads awkwardly to me - this needs more time spent to correct.
I would say that it’s pretty ugly, the introduction could be a little bit more imposing, and I would do away with the Why? Template, it looks ugly and seems to not fit in well there. The conclusion is not really right, it’s sort of tacked on - this could be better integrated as something in the last reason 'Doing it in the road seems to correspond to a premature death rate'. The second image cuts in badly, and this should ideally be changed, and I have mentioned some alternations. Overall the poise of your article is excellent and the pace is reasonable in the structure that it’s in. |
| Images: | 5.5 | I think the first one is fire and the caption fits well, The second one I mentioned cuts in badly and looks pretty poor. I dislike the last one, possibly just as preference, however I think that it looks a little obvious - maybe have some old Chaplin style shots of the public pointing, or have a carry on image with Sid James 'watching with concern'. Not a strong aspect of the article here |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | Pretty good, I have to say though that it failed to engage me, I think that it needs a little more time, and maybe further expansion of content to broaden interest and increase the humour factor. I feel that the writing is in need of polish despite an already decent standard. |
| Final Score: | 29.1 | I hope I have been helpful, should you need anything do not hesitate to leave a note on my talkpage:) |
| Reviewer: | --Sycamore (Talk) 12:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | |