| Property | Value |
|---|
| rdfs:label | - Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Visual puns (third time)
|
| rdfs:comment | - Because CandidToaster did the first two reviews, I'd like to see what someone else thinks about it. -- 15:48, June 8, 2011 (UTC) I'll get it. -- 19:06, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
|
| dcterms:subject | |
| Mcomment | - Overall quality as it stands, not counting the potential.
|
| Pcomment | - Err, well, there isn't much really, but what you have is good. There are a few parts where you lost me: like the joke about George Dubya; that just confused me. The "Mission Accomplished" thing isn't really a visual pun. Is that even what you're suggesting? I'm not sure. Also, at one point you say "omit" where you mean "emit". Apart from that it's all Kool and the Gang. Just try to keep up the jocular tone if you write more.
|
| Icomment | - Yep, all good stuff here. Again I would like to reiterate that the main thing I would like to see is more visual puns. You've proven yourself an excellent 'chopper, so why not have a think about what you could throw together?
|
| Pscore | |
| Ccomment | - Moving it to the new title was definitely a wise move. It feels very focussed and realised now. Expansion is the main thing that you need to think about. I think you need a lot more visual puns, and not just random ones, ones that fit in with what you're saying in the same way the big "C" one does. More written content would probably inspire more ideas in this respect. Just doing a quick Google search for visual puns yielded literally several results, so give that a go too and see what you can come up with.
|
| Cscore | |
| Mscore | |
| Hcomment | - Hey Magic. First of all I'd like to say I like this. In this new version, which is a vast improvement, the humour is really strong up to a point. I love the start and I love the end, but it's the middle that really lets it down in my opinion. Actually, that sounds harsh. The middle is by no means bad, but it feels a little forced, and also a little rushed. The reason the intro and outro are the best parts of the article is that they use the encyclopaedic format as a basis. The Stalin quote, for instance, is a well-known cliché that you very successfully play on - same with the footnotes and the "sew in conclusion" section. I really like these parts; they're clever and satirical, whereas the middle section seems carelessly thrown together and without much thought. The fact that about three of them aren't even visual puns doesn't help matters either. While I have nothing against any of them and am by no means suggesting you delete them, what I would like to see is some expansion of the encyclopaedic aspects of the article. The history section, for instance, could have more. I love the revision history gag, but you could always follow this with an actual paragraph or two on their history, even if it mostly consists of punny pictures of the various people/events throughout history. And are there other common sections of encyclopaedias you could spoof? In the same way you do with footnotes and history? That's the kind of thing that would push this from "possibly-featureable" to "possible article of the month".
|
| Iscore | |
| Hscore | |
| Fcomment | - So overall, nice work. What you've got here is great, especially the beginning and end. Quite an easy one to review really as well, so thanks for that. I hope my advice is helpful. As usual, get in touch if you have any other questions.
|
| dbkwik:uncyclopedia/property/wikiPageUsesTemplate | |
| Signature | |
| abstract | - Because CandidToaster did the first two reviews, I'd like to see what someone else thinks about it. -- 15:48, June 8, 2011 (UTC) I'll get it. -- 19:06, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
|
