Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Wisdom (rewrite halfway done)
Wisdom [edit source]
I am in the process of rewriting this thing, so it's not finished. I know it is lacking in the image department, but that is being remedied before the weekend. So if someone would give me gentle feedback on the article. Scoring is optional, I care more about the content of the feedback than numbers. Thank you. --
20:16, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- I'm here now, 24 hours. --ChiefjusticeDS 19:06, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
| Humour: | 6 | Right, your humour is definitely on the right lines and I thought that parts of it were genuinely amusing, what you need to do now is to focus on the aspects of the article that aren't so good. The first problem that I noticed with your humour was that the jokes, while you can work them out if you spend some time aren't constructed as well as I think they could be, the punchlines are slightly amusing on their own but in a couple of cases feel like they come from nowhere and I think this is definitely worth a second look. Parts of the article like this: "In the end, it turned out this was mainly a hoax to comfort the egos of a few perverted old priests, who liked to see girls kissing each other." Now this punchline is relatively amusing but I was left confused as to where the girls kissing each other part came from, perhaps I'm just being thick, but I would have found this joke far more amusing if the punchline you come out with was reached in a more logical way. My advice for fixing this is that you go back and check your existing text carefully for instances where you rely on the reader inferring much of the joke (remember that while the joke may be obvious to you, someone else might have less of an idea) in the instances where you do this I would recommend that you just put in another sentence that can just set up the punchline. I'm not suggesting you blatantly sign-post every joke you make, but rather give the reader less of a job to do in figuring out the joke.
The second problem that I saw was that the history seems to be made up of lots of jokes that exist independently, I noticed that you were starting up a running joke that nobody is actually wise, for the most part they were just in charge, and I think that is good. As I said before I'm less sure about having all the jokes in the history occur separately, I think that the history section is a brilliant place for you to use the running joke to it's full potential, you can exploit this at the simplest level by just having a recurring statement that crops up no matter what you are describing. For example if you decided that your running joke was going to be that only the people with the most money are considered to be wise then you could repeat something that gave this impression throughout, I hope I'm making this clear enough for you. |
| Concept: | 7 | Your concept is fine, and the subject matter is absolutely fine, for the most part your tone is OK, but I would recommend a couple of changes to it. The first thing is that your tone is encyclopaedic, there is no problem with that, but if you are going to use it then you should try to avoid breaking out of the tone with profanity, for example instead of "or rich bastards who can afford bribing the Nobel Prize Committee" it would be better to say "or, if you are a wealthy member of society then you can simply bribe the Nobel Prize Committee". I mention this only because the switch to profanity feels like a jolt away from the rest of the article, if you exploit the links, as you do elsewhere in the article , you can achieve the same effect but without the jarring change in tone. Take a look at this article if you want to see one of the best examples of use of the encyclopaedic tone. |
| Prose and formatting: | 7 | Because of the article being unfinished I feel I can't grade you higher on this one, but moving swiftly on to the comments you are interested in. Your prose are pretty good but I would urge you to proofread carefully, I noticed a couple of errors as I read through, very minor stuff, and I would be quite happy to proofread this for you when you are done if you don't fancy doing it yourself (I understand some people don't enjoy proofreading, I have no idea why). If you do fancy doing it yourself just be on the lookout for typos, plurals and sentence division, but as I say I'm quite happy to help you fix this. Besides this there isn't much I can indicate rather than to advise on your images, remember to put in a couple more, I'd say three would be best considering your article is shaping up to be long enough to have that many. |
| Images: | 4 | Not much to score on here, as you are aware, I like your current image and caption, so I have high hopes for the rest when it does appear. |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | My overall grade of the article. |
| Final Score: | 30 | You have the makings of something really special here, and I'm sure you can make it work. The article has some good parts at the moment, but you need to work at the problems to make sure this article is as good as it can be. If you have any questions, comments, or want a hand with anything then feel free to leave me a message on my talk page and I will get back to you as soon as I can. Good luck making any changes. |
| Reviewer: | --ChiefjusticeDS 20:36, November 12, 2009 (UTC) | |