Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Charles III (resub 1)
Charles III[edit]
Cajek's review was excellent and I acted on most of the things he said but I would like to get another opinion just to see if I've cleaned it up enough. Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 
DJ Irreverent 13:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
|
A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article is being reviewed by: UU - natter  (While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead). (Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole). |
OK, this is a long-ish article. I'll need the big mug... --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 20:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
| Humour: | 8 | OK, I thought quite deeply about that score - you picked a tough cookie with an article about a non-existent royal, and made it harder by making him such a nonentity. Thing is, we have had a few forgettable monarchs, so to make one up seems almost unnecessary. However, like you say, that never stopped us around here, so... I liked it, on the whole (I tend to mark things lower than Cajek, he tends towards 7 as an "average" article - I maintain that 5 is average) and think you've done a decent job. One or two bits to tighten up, but nothing major. My other worry is the length. Length can be a problem with historical themed articles, as unless you have an instant hook, people will think "history - and look at the length, boring!" and sod off before reading very far. However, a good read through, and most of the sections stand up well, so you may have to be really ruthless to make it more appealing to the attention deficit generation. One the whole though, very amusing, I enjoyed reading it! |
| Concept: | 7 | Again, I ummed and ahhed about this, and changed it a couple of times, but you took what could have been a non-starter and got a good article out of it, so well done. |
| Prose and formatting: | 7.5 | Pretty good, overall. You've got the proofread tag on there to get the final bits picked up - give me a shout when you've made some more tweaks and I'll have a look if you like. I tend to do quite a few proofreads anyway. Any issues are mainly on the flow and readability front than any real glaring errors, but a couple of points:
Beyond that, formatting is fine, and genrally it's a good bit of work. |
| Images: | 9 | About the right number, and mostly very good. A bit thrown by the Crue there though - OK, I know Mick is "the old one", but that just seems more than a tad random to me. Particularly as he's not the drummer (Tommy's the one on the left). I'd ditch that one and try to find another one that fits. Maybe a goose being crowned, for instance. One of the talented 'choppers over at image request may help you there. Or I might try, if no-one else does. |
| Miscellaneous: | 7.9 | Averaged, because I hate the misc box, and it seemed quite apt for this guy... |
| Final Score: | 39.4 | OK, on the whole I like it. I worry it may be too long to get many people to read it for the reasons I mention above, but a little pruning will help with that, and those who do read it will be rewarded with a good few chuckles. So yeah, good work! |
| Reviewer: | --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |
OK, further comments as follows:
To go arse about face and start with the end, Legacy: the heavy metal bit seemed pointless to me, it's not been flagged up earlier, and I'm sure it won't be missed. The goose currently feels a little random as it's not fully integrated. You mention it in the infobox as his successor, so just tie that up there - how did it succeed him instead of a sibling, heir or other noble? Was it because it was considered vastly more entertaining and the ultimate antithesis of Charles? The rest of that section is good though. I particularly like the ballad thingy.
Death - while you mention the pie was his downfall, it's not clear exactly how. A line explaining what caused him to be lifeless on the crapper wouldn't go amiss.
The college buddies/prank calling bit - while amusing, I think could maybe go in the name of shortening the article. Keep it mind for somehting else, maybe - good ideas can often be recycled elsewhere. However, that's just a suggestion to help trim a little, it's not a necessity.
One other thing: "Such blatant flattery was lauded as either the sign of a calculating genius or a total retard. I'll let you decide which." - That last line is not necessary. It won't make a difference to the lenghth, but you can trim it - it feels a tad clumsy. Plus you haven't used the first person in the rest of the article, so it feels out of place here.
So yeah, a couple of things to sort out, a possible change of pic, and a feeling it may be a wee bit long, but that the content is all pretty decent - I've written harsher reviews. My average score is around 25, so this is damn good for me, and those tweaks, plus a final proofread for minor quibbles, should take it comfortably into the 40s. I'd say it would then be heading into VFH territory, although my last call in that direction only ended up being a quasi. Still, whatever else it is, it's a damn fine read, and I salute you!
as ever, this is only my opinion, others are available, and good luck! --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)