Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Shoot the albatross
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Why?:Shoot the albatross[edit source]
I think with a little push, this could be pretty fucking funny. Can someone provide that push for me? Thanks, mates! --Hyperbole 19:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
| Humour: | 6 | A little random, not a bad thing, its' just I'm not at all brought in by your concept, this in my opinion is a serious problem with the humour of your article- many of the sections are alright, the content is often a little too inconsistent thoughout to draw a reader in and i think you've attempted to much within your short article. I like the first bit where you use the {{username}} template to great effect and I would keep this. I also think you were referring to Tennyson or Possibly Melville towards the end as they both use that meter- I would add more to this, a lot more. Often the references a are good but not filled out enough, Turing test and Rubix cubes- great but they don't fit in. similarly the whole piece does not really connect together well, and the reasons for and against should (in my opinion) connect in some way to each other more fully. Often the sections are abrupt and look flung in, the popcorn bit for example looks out of place and there a few sections that are simply too short which give the piece a very poor look and due to the random inconsistency makes it seems to detract from the humour. The conclusion for example, not funny and add little to the piece, single one sentence bits rarely work. Having fewer sections but fuller paragraphs is the key to good articles, as a guide most of the best articles on the site rarely go much over a thousand words (usually) and tend not to have many sections. I do like the second half a lot more and is a lot better that the first part, again too many sections, more merging and expansion could be done here- I like the references to the love between sailors an the myth of albatrosses, my opinion is to expand and fill out this more as it will give a more rounded and consistent piece
==sections==. |
| Concept: | 5 | Not the most ideal concept, I think that if there’s a more consistent vein of seamen (jokes there) or of maritime poetry the concept could be made a lot more interesting- the whole wacky randomness will work better if the page does not get substantially longer but more consistent and taking the piss of only a few things rather than the offshoots that are currently there are too many and the piece need to be tightened up and filled out |
| Prose and formatting: | 7 | Great use of footnotes, and the sections have all be added well, and I saw no spelling or glaring grammatical mistakes. Many parts are one or two sentence offshoots which are bad- similarly the abruptness of it do not work for me. No red links (clearly very much a pro on this sort of stuff here). The images are badly placed, I suggest the one you have at the bottom is placed at top right corner and the 'Why' template moved down. You have also aligned left here; generally a rule of thumb is to align right. |
| Images: | 6 | Good, I like the black and white one and it adds to the piece very well, I'm not so sure about the jack sparrow one. I've put a link which has loads of pictures of a good size that can either be used directly or you can Photoshop with them |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | An alright article-keep it up, its a question of a little more work and I think theres a good article here with a little more time spent filling the concept out a little more. |
| Final Score: | 30 | Any comments/queries/complaints just leave a note on my talk page:) |
| Reviewer: | --— Sir Sycamore (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC) | |