Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Writing
Writing[edit source]
Okie kokie. I complealetly wrote this, in a uncyclopedic style as I've been told I should try. Kinda hoping to get a feature from this, what do you think? Orian57 Talk 
01:45 15 June 2009
Oh yeah, this is the old version. I'm sure you'll agree I did better. I mean not that I'm arrogant or anything... :/ Orian57 Talk 01:47 15 June 2009
 |
This article is under review by <font-weight:bold>Gerry Cheevers. Sayeth Gerry: shotgun!! |
| Humour: | 7.2 | average of sections
an excellent intro. very nice encyclopedic tone, use of medium-big words, and a good thought chain that you warp back around on in the end. well done! the ending was the tiniest bit unclear, maybe make it more obvious why the screens are freezing.
again, some good stuff here. a lot of it read pretty choppily, but that's for the prose section. 'it was terrible being a prostitue in the 90's'...the 1990s? perhaps a bit more about diaries would suffice, and how they have transformed into blogs and stuff. i feel like the history section could be fleshed out a bit more, and it should be your longest section. go back to the origins (egyptians? greeks?), follow it up to dickens through plato and pliny and such. you can keep the fact that it was out of the public eye until dickens, but it certainly existed before that, no? that's the only reason the 9 dropped to a 7 here, because what is already here is great.
i liked this section. a few issues: 'had eight subsequent bears'...you mean beers, or is that another weird spelling from across the pond? you refer to the fat man without introducing him or anything. i like how you infer that writers tend to give long names to things because they forget the name of that thing, but it could be more clear.
this section is good, but could be a tad bit longer. i don't agree with the use of exclamation points ('more productive than ever!') in an article with this sort of tone, i feel it takes away from the encyclopedic voice and the official feel. i thought smokescreens meant actual screens made of smoke. what's rumbled? surely you could write more than two sentneces about fictionists with writers block?
ah! there's egpyt! i really didn't like the ending, i think it's by far the weakest link in an otherwise super-solid article. the wrap-up can be the most important part of an article, and i feel for this one you need to come up with something better than that. speculate on the future of writing - direct transfers from the mind to computers? space-writing? i think if you read the article, then go straight to writing the conclusion, you should be able to transfer the rest of the article's awesomeness to an awesome ending. |
| Concept: | 9 | 5/5 points for a well-known subject worthy of parody. surely we should have an article on writing.
4/5 points for execution. i really do like all of the underlying ideas you've come up with. |
| Prose and formatting: | 6 | the formatting was fine. those block quotes worked well, and didn't disrupt anything as theyr are often apt to do. your prose left something to be desired. your misuse of commas made the re-reading of sentences necessary, which you never want. there were also some typos and other minor mistakes. i'll give it a once over. |
| Images: | 7 | adequate. why is the caption for the first one 'another'? the list was good, and the spreadsheet was good also. i feel like you might need one more image at the end, but that might only be a result of you last two images being white, giving the article the illusion of being empty. |
| Miscellaneous: | 7.3 | averaged via magic. |
| Final Score: | 36.5 | my preview button tells me that your score is 36.5, placing you comfortably in the 'average' threshhold of 35-40. however, with some proofreading spit & polish and a better ending, this is easily featurable. i'd try to extend some of the sections, particularly history, and see if you can't solve the mystery of the deceptively existing images. other than that, this is highly enjoyable. good work, and good luck! |
| Reviewer: | 15:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC) | |