User:Under user/PLS 09 judging

This is where definitive judgement will be carried out on the following articles:

User:Bad Shroom/Manga

Initial impressions

It's a one-line stub.

How it works as an article

It's a one-line stub.

Quality of rewrite

The original article is essentially two lists with a couple of short, kinda random sections. But this is a one-line stub.

Summary

It's a one-line stub. Did someone lose interest?

User:Mahm00shA/Manowar

Initial impressions

Umm - tiny images, then some larger images, no consistency, lots of quotes, a big yellow template right in the middle - where's the {{ugly}} template?

How it works as an article

OK, let's see - concept, what's the concept? Manowar as a Nordic civilisation? Well, overlooking the fact that Manowar doesn't sound like the name of a country, I'll give it a shot. Seems to be written in some kind of academic stylee, well, OK, again, let's run with it.

Rightyho, some way in, I'm liking some of it so far - I like Prof. Jack O'Faul Trades and Prof. Masteroff Nunn in particular, because I'm a sucker for a pun - but I'm not enjoying other bits. The bits about Uncyclopedia needing donations and the like just get in the way, and the stack of quotes, plus that damn template, make it feel very disjointed - it's hard to keep reading it, if I'm honest.

And we're at the finish, so how was it for me? Bitty, to be brutally honest. There were some good ideas and good lines in there. But there were also odd bits, bits that didn't fit, bits that annoyed me, and unexplained leaps of logic that didn't help me stay engaged with the article. The concept didn't really work, for me - I didn't find myself connecting with it, and I felt it never really settled on how the concept worked. The ending is not strong either, and the blood splatter after the footnotes seems tacked-on and is unexplained. Plus there's a My Sojourn section - and while I may be in the minority among established users, I really don't find My Sojourn stuff funny. At. All. If that was my only problem with the article, I'd gloss over it, but as it stands, this is too scattershot to really convince. Some nice lines, but nothing special.

Quality of rewrite

Let's look at the original article. Hum. So this is effectively not so much a rewrite as a totally new article with the same name. I see a rewrite as taking the existing idea or concept, or some other aspect of the existing article that works, and making it sit up and beg. Apart from the "not gay" thing, which is mentioned in passing, nothing from this original is used.

And the original article has some merit - it's not atrocious. The running "not gay" gag is not as bad as it could have been, some of the observations about the band are kind of amusing. This could have been pruned somewhat, and the better ideas (of which there are some) used as the basis for quite a decent article.

Summary

So, it's not really a rewrite, it's not a hugely consistent article in its own right, and I don't see it as a sufficient improvement over the old one. I have to be honest: it needs a lot more work.

User:Gerrycheevers/Abraham Lincoln

Initial impressions

OK, a US president article. My knowledge of US history is somewhat sporadic, but hopefully that won't matter. It looks like it's going for a fairly standard bio approach. Looks the business, at least. Let's get reading!

How it works as an article

Quite well - it's well written, readable, and has some funny bits. It's well structured, not so US-centric that a godless foreigner like me can't understand most of the references, and pretty good. It is a touch on the dry side though - if you read through ignoring the footnotes, it isn't a huge amount of fun - there are nice bits and lighter moments, but it feels almost heavy going in other places. Feels like the author did the groundwork first, then added some funny, but ran out of time before a bit more could be added. Pretty good, then, but feels like it needs a few more tweaks to be excellent.

Quality of rewrite

Let's see, takes the same basic approach, keeps an idea or two (the wrestling being the most obvious) and re-uses a pic or two. Is a significant improvement on the original, which I look forward to seeing the back of when this version gets moved.

Summary

A good, solid rewrite. Quite funny, and well written, but a little patchy in places. Enjoyable as it is, but I think it can be polished to a higher level of shine with just a bit more attention.

User:SPIKE/FORTRAN

Initial impressions

Well, I've had the misfortune to work in COBOL, so this may be right up my street. Tough sell to the masses though.

How it works as an article

Hum, a little middling. My favourite bit is the intro, and that line was present in one of the originals. While of course keeping the good lines of the original is a key skill in a good rewrite, I like to see people add better stuff of their own.

Using the .syntax. is an interesting idea, but when unexplained is just going to look odd to people - surely there's a way to get a joke out of explaining it more clearly? Essentially, this reads to me like an article by someone who knows their subject and forgets sometimes that other people may not. As such, there are some bits that are more amusing to those with a techie background, and some bits that fall a bit flat. I'd call it a good start, but say it needs more work.

Quality of rewrite

It's an improvement, and it keeps the best bits for the original pages, but it doesn't add enough spark of its own to really stand out. A good tidy up, but it needs some juice adding.

Summary

A competent rescue mission, but needs to step up a gear. With more work, though, it could end up quite decent.