Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Winfield Scott
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Winfield Scott[edit source]
I wrote this article under my userspace after discovering we had no page for the guy- which is bad because he is historically important. And I'm happy to remedy all these missing articles about historical figures myself. Except I have no idea if this, the trial run, is any good. By the way, most of the article is historically accurate, with little jokes or "funny" embellishments thrown in. Now, please, tell me if I'm doing this right. --SirIsaac 18:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
SirIsaac 18:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
PRIP EXPIRED Though Hyperbole reserved this Pee Review, he/she/it/Abominable Snowman has not yet completed it. You may claim the review by replacing his/her/its/Abominable Snowman's name with yours. |
Humour: | 7.5 | Going section-by-section ensures that I will miss the point entirely. So let's do it.
|
Concept: | 8.5 | Well, it's pretty much a tried-and-true concept: take a figure from history, and make fun of him either by presenting serious facts about him in absurd ways, or absurd non-facts about him in serious ways. And it's executed well. No complaints. |
Prose and formatting: | 9 | I loved the prose in this article. It has something that so, so many Uncyclopedia articles lack: comic timing. I like the technique of drawing out the punchline, e.g. "was, by all accounts, old" - the wordy buildup to the asinine conclusion is a very clever bait-and-switch. In fact, I'd give the prose a 10. The article loses a point in this category for its over-short sections and the way it seems to just sort of abruptly end. It could do with a conclusion. |
Images: | 9 | The pictures are perfect for the article; they give it an atmosphere of total seriousness, and then you read the captions, and get some delightful lowbrow humor. "because, well, no one likes being photographed on the toilet" was one of the biggest laughs of the article to me (and, I note, it uses the same delayed-punchline technique I noted above). Good job. Of course, if this article gets much bigger, it's gonna need a third picture. |
Miscellaneous: | 7 | Not averaged. Number pulled out of my ass for no reason. |
Final Score: | 41 | So, 41. According to the guidelines, that's "Better than average; might be VFH." Sounds about right. This has very definite VFH potential; really, what it needs to be VFH-worthy, IMHO, is more. It needs to be maybe 150% as long as it is now. So, my advice: keep going. This is one of the funnier articles I've seen submitted to PEE in quite a while. |
Reviewer: | 00:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |