| Property | Value |
|---|
| rdfs:label | - Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/NASA
|
| rdfs:comment | - just finished up this total rewrite, as the article before was the worst. i feel it is vastly better; looking for an in-depth review. 22:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC) smuggler gave me some opinions, they're on the talk page. looking for a more in-depth review. 02:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC) I'll take a look at this, for now, enjoy Noel with this free coupon. 11:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
|
| dcterms:subject | |
| Mcomment | - Good stuff, a bit of spit and polish and this will sail VFH
|
| Pcomment | - Now, I think should be added under the first picture, I also think Having the Table of Contents should be added - its a helpful and creates an authentic look. More linkage and les subsections. I also like using citations or footnotes - and there good to have.
The reason why I think there should be more of this is that, articles should parody wikipedia/encyclopedic writing at some level - I think losing the wikipedia look is a bad thing. I always advocate and aim for readers to at a glance, not be able to tell them apart if possible - this adds to the humour factor and draws readers in. For the actual prose I went though a lot of the stuff before, I think the paragraphs are a tad blocky and convoluted otherwise the prose is written well and there’s not any serious complaints .
No major complaints and coming close under preference than fact – still it would be nice to see the formatting change bit.
|
| Icomment | - relevant, captions also fit in with the images it feels like there a few too many I like the aligned right look particularly in an article of this length. They could be a tad larger, although this does contradict my encyclopedic rant - again this is a matter of preference rather than a rule - although the article does look very full with the current mount of images as well as the first one being a lot larger then the others.
|
| Pscore | |
| Ccomment | - Great place to work from, you seem to have good understanding and overall a decent handling though, good focus on the topic, I’d say it more a question of sharpening and stripping back a little. Good article
|
| Cscore | |
| Mscore | |
| Hcomment | - Good stuff here, good humour throughout - I have a few gripes about formatting which I’ll go though below.
*Introduction: Good, the sibilance jokes not so good i.e. "space travel, spacewalking, space aliens, and Kevin Spacey" good references to Area 51/ and the space program, a pretty strong start - the pace within the paragraphs could do with a little polish - the first paragraph is quite large and blocky whilst the second one is short. No major complaints, nice image - pretty good. No Table of contents AAA! It burns!
*1st section: Slightly short and convoluted - It does not come across well - more random. The history could be more straightforward - Maybe go into it more from an American angle on spending with closer reference to American reasons rather than the Ruskies – I would build up a closer reference to the history of NASA, and then contrast it with the Russian missions and then bring the competitions between the two nations. Nothing major here; perhaps expansion and a clearer flow on history.
*Subsections: this is a little dodgy here, the first one kind of repeats the short History section, I would merge these and have a more flowing history, and I also think The Future should be its own section. Thorough all the sub sections there seems to be a good understanding and platy of gags about NASA - Its good to see good focus like this. Because of the use of subsections like this the article feels a lot shorter - I did this with David Bowie - here I think splitting it up a little would make it more accessible. I like the religion/political references reference - this would be broadened as could the hold o the history. Although this come under Prose and formatting I would say that the flow is not as good as it could be - this is difficult to define, and even more difficult to do - I would say that maybe stripping it back a little and having slightly shorter paragraphs, you also have the NASA bolded which does not seem right. No major complaints here - it’s a question of polishing off a good article.
*2nd section : Somehow this would be better integrated with the previous subsection, it seems little disjointed at the end - I think more could be made of the Hollywood interpretations of NASA missions, maybe some spoof movie elements would work well here I'm not sure about the kids - maybe have some sort of alcoholic/bum references along with extortionate amounts being paid to send up the "monkeys" or something. Nothing major - this is the section I would call the weakest link though.
|
| Iscore | |
| Hscore | |
| Fcomment | - I hope I have been helpful, should there be any questions/queries do not hesite to leave a not on my talkpage:)
|
| dbkwik:uncyclopedia/property/wikiPageUsesTemplate | |
| Signature | |
| abstract | - just finished up this total rewrite, as the article before was the worst. i feel it is vastly better; looking for an in-depth review. 22:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC) smuggler gave me some opinions, they're on the talk page. looking for a more in-depth review. 02:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC) I'll take a look at this, for now, enjoy Noel with this free coupon. 11:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
|
