Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Yahoobox/Wikileaks
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
User:Yahoobox/WikiLeaks[edit source]
Resubmission of article, rewritten in accordance with criticism. Yahoobox 00:36, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
| Humour: | 7 | The article, in my humble opinion, is funny as a parody of a wikipedia article, lulz (very funny) sarcastic, in using coloquialisms, politicaly, a couple of the pictures and the sexual references. Its more funny than not. Im left with the feeling that the best of the jokes could even be whoppers if more thought is put into it (I laughed a lot, but never out loud ... almost with the Assange, a good place to turn out a whopper for those who like them). Other places that could be a LOL moment are the book pre sales. The list is cute, but with some thought it could be helare! |
| Concept: | 3 | Im not sure what the concept is, sorry. Are you trying to show wikileaks making fun of itself (cause the last part is in 1st person), or are you making fun of wikileaks as a wikipedia article? or pointing out lots of stupid things about it (that people dont seem to care anymore, that gov is scared, that Assange may be a dirty man, that it may be a money making opportunity for Assange). Its good that you didnt turn it into a pure Assange article. Also the article changes from 3rd person to 1st person (starts off as an encyclopedic article and then goes to 1st person plural "we"). Which would maybe be okay if there was a reason to do that, but I dont see one. Each paragraph is funny in its own, and its concept is clear, and usually developed (as much as a couple paragraphs can be) but as for an overall storyline and or concept I can't figure out which one it is. If there is not one in particular than making it seem just like a wikipedia article might help (the concept being its a collection of information, in which case you would have to ditch the "we" and make it all 3rd person). |
| Prose and formatting: | 6 | I am the last person to comment on spelling and what not. But I like the style, the uses of lulz for me is perfect and funny (Though for sure some people will find it silly). I did notice a few spelling mystakes. For me a list is only a good idea if there is a reason to make a list and if its mostly funny. While its cute, you may want to turn it into a paragraph or think more about it and make it LOL rather than haha. The two different churches at the end was funny, I find your mum funny, some people wont. |
| Images: | 6 | I like the image with Anon. the dripping globe, verry funny and well placed. And the fundraising one is funny. The monkey one is okay, and the others kind of patter off into silly and clutter. If the concept is to look like a wikipedia article, some of the pictures will work against it. For me, placement of a photo is as important as how good the photo is and having a few zig zag at the bottom turns the article into a mess. |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | I like the article, I think its funny as opposed to a fart joke article and the things you say about each aspect are all worth reading and so I give a misc 5. The first half of the page is formatted well, seems to have a theme, funny, good pics etc... and then the bottom half changes to 3rd person, the photos get a little silly, the list, etc.. so that I change my mind and give a misc 6. |
| Final Score: | 28 | I think its funny and its great to have a good wikileaks article. The top pictures are well done, clever and the lolz (atleast for me) are perfectly placed and helarious, the top half is also funny and starts off well. The article would be awsome if the bottom half was the same, if there were a few whoppers and if I could see a clear concept. Not mentioned before, I think the article is a tiny bit small and could use a little more meat (develop even just a little more the assange section, the fundraising part, the lack of interest today etc...). |
| Reviewer: | --Shabidoo 01:24, February 17, 2011 (UTC) | |