Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/A Satyr's Tragedy

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archived

Guidelines

FAQ

Pee Week

Committee

RotM

User:Dexter111344/Satyr

This thing, that I recently wrote, needs to be reviewed. Immediately. Not for VFH, but for the sake of satyrs everywhere. Cause satyr is the foundation of Uncyclopedia, even if randomness and poop jokes are the true structure. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 00:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be good to point out that all satyr plays were focused around sex. Yeah. That explains why I wrote this... MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 00:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was huffed without warning :( --JackOfSpades (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It was recreated in his userspace. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That was fucking hilarious --Tlawrence12 15:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	7.5	A good quality article that made me laugh quite a bit, but still rather rough around the edges. You start off good, but then you get a bit random in the second and third section. I'd recommend cleaning up your grammar and prose to sound a bit more...what's the word...mature in your writing, because the penis jokes got a bit old. The "early childhood section" was nearly impossible to follow (Lincoln? WTF), so I suggest you rewrite that section so that it takes less effort to read. You pick up speeds towards the end again, and the "Adolescence" section is the high point of the article (a few statistics make it slightly boring, but i'll get to that in P&F).
Concept:	7	Take an obscure Greek Mythology character and make a story about him. It works relatively well, however, I suggest you go a bit more in-depth as to what a Satyr is before diving into Stan's story. After all, having to look something up on Wikipedia before reading the Uncyclopedia version of it can be a bit of a bore, so you might want to make a brief section labeled "prologue" or somesuch, so that people who have never heard of a Satyr before will "get it". That being said, you do a good style of picking your style and rolling with it, and your execution, while good, has a few noticable mistakes.
Prose and formatting:	7.5	Overall, pretty good. However, there are only two things that bugged me throughout the article: first, I think you should proofread this, as I saw a few puncuational errors here and there. Second, towards the end, you use numbers and statistics, which bore people to sleep- consider cutting the prices and amounts of money out, and that section will look a lot nicer. As a possible addition, you might want to take your last two images, and flip one of them on the left side of the page- they look a bit bundled together.
Images:	8	Apart from the first image, they give no real laughs, but they tie into and complitment the article well. You probably don't need to worry about these, as they're fine as it is, so you can just leave them be- though you might want to add an image to "Later Childhood" if you plan on expanding that section (which I recommend you do).
Miscellaneous:	7.5	My overall grade of the article.
Final Score:	37.5	You've got a decent article with a solid concept to back it up, but before you put this on VFH, there are a few things you need to rework. First, expand it a bit. "Conclusion" and "Later childhood" pale in comparison to other sections, so I recommend you work on them and add an image to each. Next, you're going to want to proofread your article and make your second section more comprehensible. To top it off, rearrange the images in your last section, and get rid of the numbers. Bottom Line: Good article, great concept, needs some fine tuning. Good luck! =)
Reviewer:	Saberwolf116 03:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)