Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/World of Warcraft (quick)

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

World of Warcraft

I rewrote this jumbled, incoherent, chuck norris-filled rant adn produced what i hope is a decent article. some thoughts? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 19:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is under review by none other than..... Stairs. Let down your hopes, eh?

Humour:	4	Oh joy, an article on a game. Let's get started. Introduction - So, let's see here. Now, I'm not trying to be mean here, but the first paragrpah of your introduction seemed a bit more stupid than anything else. It did inform us well of what it was, but most of it was too nonsensical and random to really draw any laughs. I think you should change it to be more like the second paragraph, with one good idea to run with the whole time. Now, for the second paragraph, I really liked it. It's a good idea, but I think you sort of over-used it. When I first saw it, it looked good, but after a while it got boring. You have to have another objective of the game, to, let's say, give it depth? Overall: The intro needs some rethinking. Remove the nonsense, and add some depth. Gameplay & Starting a character - So, right off with the introduction you start us off with a very long list. The list wasn't stupid, but it sort of played on the same joke for the last three or so things. It got a bit boring to read, too. However, the next sentence, well, to me, just seemed a bit outrageous and unrealistic. I know that was part of the joke, but for me I think it just flopped. Like I said for the intro, you should remove the nonsense and not play around with the same joke. I know you can do it, seeing you have a ton of features. Now, as for Starting a Character, the section was average. There was nothing too special, but there was nothing really stupid either. However, it did lack laughs, so I was really sort of disappointed. The bottom line: You have a solid section regarding making a character, but it was very low on jokes that made me laugh. You need to add some funny stuff in there. Ongoing Gameplay - Well, I've got some good news! This section was a vast improvement over the other sections. It was enjoyable, and seemed mainly focused the whole time. However, one thing I wish to point out is that you went from what happens to characters to the story behind the game. What I think you should do is perhaps move the section explaining the storyline of the game before explaining how a character is made. This would make things slightly easier to understand, and just seems to make sense (To me.). The bottom line: This is a good, solid section. I laughed, and the only thing you need to do is reorganize a bit. Other Gameplay Aspects Warranting Mention - This section was a little bit disappointing. I thought that you were going to keep the quality of the previous section, but this section seemed just a bit to random for me. Take, for example, the part about the challenges, or should I say, Instances that involved the Escalator, Food Court, and Parking Structure. That seemed very random and out of place, considering the main point of the game is supposed to be clicking on animals. Also, the part with the accomplishments where you rambled on with all of the random events that you needed to do in order to get the achievement was just plain stupid. I'm not trying to be mean here, and I hope you don't feel that I am. I'm just trying to tell you what is wrong and how it needs to be fixed. The Bottom line: This section got random again. You need to get focus, and you need to get rid of the nonsense. Expansions - This section, like starting a character, was well written, but lacked the funny portions. So, all you really need to do with this section is add some jokes, and then it will be complete. And, considering it's length, it should be pretty easy to do. The bottom line: Add a few jokes. Overall, this article was more random and nonsensical than anything else. Yes, it had bright spots, but the others don't live up to those. If you can have the whole article up to the quality of those spots, you're on fo a winner of an article. You have a lot of work ahead of you, but it's possible.
Concept:	6	In many spots of your article, your ideas conflicted. And, apart from that, you went back and forth from random to focused. It was kind of confusing to read in some spots. Take, for example, the part where you mention the Escalators and Parking Structure. That really seemed to make no sense, considering the main point of the game is to click animals. Unless there is a herd of Cows on the Escalator, I see no reason why it would be in the game. I think you need to reconsider the main point of the game for this reason. You have to make it more than just clicking on animals. You have to mention in your introduction about all of the challenges for people in the game, so that these activates actually makes sense. And, once I got into the articles, it seemed like clicking animals wasn't even the main point of the game. This was probably the biggest problem of the article when it came to concept. You really had me confused with that. Another problem was the fact that you were being too random. This may some people laugh, but I think the majority will go "Huh?" rather than "Hah!". Like I was saying, it was really more dumb than anything else. Your footnotes were generally unfunny; some were decent but most were not necessary. What you need to do is get rid of that random, unfunny bits of material and replace it with something genuinely funny. The bottom line: You had several conflicting ideas, which you need to fix. Also, you have to get rid of the random portions, because they made the article less funny.
Prose and formatting:	8	There was nothing really wrong with your prose, but I do have a few minor complaints with your formatting. One thing I may point out is the fact that you have a good bit of content in not a lot of sections. Ongoing Gameplay and Starting a Character were pretty long, and maybe you could break them up a bit. You don't need too, but I just recommend it. Also, regarding your footnotes, a thing that bugged me was the fact that most of them were clumped together into groups. The whole Starting a Character section went without a reference, where as a single paragraph had two or three. Like the previous thing, this isn't that important to fix, I just suggest it. However, the rest though is fine. Good job with this. The bottom line: You don't have many problems with your prose and formatting. The ones you do have are minor. Good job.
Images:	7	Your images were decent. However, the image captions were completely irrelevant to the rest of the article. The first caption was odd, wasn't funny, and didn't really have anything to do with the article. The image itself was appropriate, but the caption needs rethinking. The same can be said for the second image. The image fits well, but in your article you said nothing about Tier 5 equipment or anything. You should change that around. And, the third image seemed, according to it's caption, irrelevant as well. Like above, you didn't mention anything about Epic Gear for the more experienced players. You either need to: A) Mention Epic gear in your article, or B) Change the caption around. Personally, i would like to see a mention of Epic gear in your article. The bottom line: You need to change your captions around to go with the article, because they are unrelated.
Miscellaneous:	6.3	See below.
Final Score:	31.3	You have several things you need to do to make this article better. Get rid of the random stuff - It wasn't funny, and sort of ruined the article. Get your ideas straight - They conflicted in areas, and it's important you keep them in line. Change your image captions - They were unrelated to the article and threw it off. Overall, I think your article was sort of weak. I hope I didn't come off as mean, like I said I wastrying to point out you errors and then address ways to fix it. So, if you have any questions or comments, call me on ym talk page. Good luck with your article!
Reviewer:	Staircase CUNt 18:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I know no one asked for my opinion, but just looking through the first couple sections I was finding myself laughing a fair bit. But that's just me, I guess. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 20:09, Jul 12

Yeah, I just read through the whole thing and I really thought it was pretty good. Again, just my opinion. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 20:25, Jul 12

Personally, I found it too random to be funny :P but that's me, you know. Staircase CUN^t 20:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I liked it too, and didn't see too much that was random. Were you reading it expecting random, because it was a game article? I have a particular fondness for "the murder knife of stabbiness". --UU - natter 08:23, Jul 13

well, i can't say i agree with all of stair's reaction, but as far as "one year of gameplay will cost the player around two hundred dollars" being "a bit outrageous and unrealistic"...outrageous yes, unrealistic no (assume you spend 50 on the game and 15 a month for twelve months...50 + (15 X 12) = 230). SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)