Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Is my house on fire

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Why?:Is my house on fire

I wrote this article quite a while ago, and now I am trying to actually finish it. I'm thinking of transforming it into more of a sadistic adventure story than a sadistic guide like my Why?:Stick Things in the Electrical Outlet and Why?:Stick Things in the Microwave Oven.

-- Sir Unknown User ^{(Talk : Cont : VFH : PEE : CUN)}

Feel free to fix my sig if it acts up again

I have rematerialised here, to do your review, tell nobody. --ChiefjusticeDS 17:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	5	The foundations for your humour are perfectly viable and your article demonstrates real potential on this. You do, however, have a few problems in need of fixing. The first thing you should do before making any changes to your article is to read HTBFANJS and make sure your entire article conforms. One of the main difficulties that I noticed was that your jokes tend to bring in punchlines from nowhere, for example: "If the smoke is coming over the water, recite the following line, "Smoke, on the waaa aaater" and take another bong hit, you hippie!". While that is slightly amusing, the humour does not work in this context, the joke comes out of nowhere and seems redundant to the actual article. When writing a Why? you should aim to keep the jokes grounded in the subject matter and thus make jokes about the subject matter and draw in punchlines from sources that are quite closely related. For a good demonstration of how to do humour in a Why? successfully you can take a look at this featured article. Another point that I noticed is that your article seems to lack a definitive direction; obviously it should be geared towards answering the question in the title, yours neglects this until the second half of the article. If you are going to use the instructional style that you are using some of the time here then you should focus on answering the question at almost all times.
Concept:	4	The main problem here is with your consistency of tone. The concept is fine and is enough to catch the eye of someone just browsing the Why? section. To make sure you execute this tone correctly you should try and keep your tone consistent. I noticed that you flit from the instructional third person to the informal first person frequently throughout the article and ideally you should use only one of the two. To say something like "Fire is hot. Very hot. Unfortunately your dog did not know that, as I burning your dog. Oopsie!" is unprofessional and you should try to narrate from the first person: always addressing the reader and making comments about them. Or you should use the encyclopedic third person: The style adopted by Wikipedia at all times, see this article for a good example of how to use it humourously.
Prose and formatting:	6	Your prose are OK, but they do need some work. The first thing you should do is to proofread the article carefully as there are a fair few errors in need of correction. A couple of these errors occur with your syntax around links, you should remember that you do not need to use the title of another article to link to it, thus you should correct these problems. If you have any problems that would prevent you from proofreading efficiently such as not speaking the language at 100% proficiency or crippling laziness then feel free to enlist the help of a member of UN:PS by attatching this template: {{Proofread}} to the page. Otherwise you should look to sort out some of the formatting difficulties, the top of the page is a good place to start, I think you can present this in a more accessible and consistent manner, just try to change it so it works with whichever tone you use, you could even put it as a quote. Your image to text ratio also needs work, you should have at least 2 pictures in the article (more on this below) so it can hold something for those who don't enjoy reading.
Images:	5	You have one image right now, and while it is quite amusing, you need to carry the success here on. Be creative and select an image that compliments the text in a similar way to your current one. A house on fire could work pretty well, and could be a really good joke if you caption it well, you have really gotten off to a good start here and should aim to replicate your success with the current image further.
Miscellaneous:	5	My overall grade of the article.
Final Score:	25	Your article definitely has potential to be excellent and what is really apparent is that you already have the foundations to fulfil the potential it has. Try to take my suggestions into account and not to be discouraged by any criticism, you can make this one excellent and you need only carry out a few changes to get there. Take your time and be harsh with yourself over any changesm, keep only what you think is best. If you have any qualms or queries with regard to my review then feel free to ask me on my talk page. My presence on the site is very intermittent currently, but I will do my best to deal with any problems you have. Good luck making any changes.
Reviewer:	--ChiefjusticeDS 18:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)