Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Facebook

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archived

Guidelines

FAQ

Pee Week

Committee

RotM

Facebook

I emerged from isolation a couple weeks ago and saw this. Ew, right? Right. So in less than 24 hours I hammered out a complete rewrite of the article, one that, I think, actually satirizes Facebook. The point is to demonstrate Facebook as an amazing tool for its customers, which are not its users but advertising companies that collect the personal information of Facebook's users. The main theme here is that "truth is funnier than outright lies." End result: Very little of this article's content was flat-out made up, but you'll see a fair amount of exaggeration in the name of satire. --Andorin Kato 00:43, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

I've got this one. In the name of Pee Week. 24 hours. --ChiefjusticeWii 10:07, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Humour:	9	Straight off here I'll say that I thought this article was really good, the style and tone really appealed to me and I laughed several times as I read through. That isn't to say I don't have anything to comment on, but many of these points are somewhat minor and shouldn't give the impression that they ruined the article for me. The first thing that struck me on finishing reading was that we hear a huge amount about Facebook's clients and virtually nothing about the users, it's almost as though the article ends before we feel we have the full picture of what Facebook does. I see your reasoning for this division but would suggest that the section on users could perhaps be extended. Permit me to expand, consider the idea that instead of simply referring to the services Facebook offers its users very generally perhaps go into a bit more depth with a couple of bits. For instance cite the way people interact with each other, which could be considered to be a way in which Facebook allows users to reveal varying bits of information about themselves through conversation with other users, also consider mentioning the way Facebook generously allows you to like various organisations in order to grant those companies free advertising and to allow other advertisers to better target their advertising. I suggest this change because I feel that much of the humour for people reading the article will be seeing what role they play. I understand that you are trying to demonstrate the fact that Facebook's users are not its prime interest but I think expanding on their role would be beneficial and still retain this tone. The other thing that struck me was that the article doesn't seem to end particularly strongly, you begin to talk about people who dislike facebook, and this is another aspect on which I thought you could expand. Mentioning other social networks or the feature of facebook connect which you could say allows facebook to ensure it is the only website that owns your data, which it can excuse by saying that your information is safe with them. It may also be an idea to mention compromises of Facebook's security where people gain unauthorised access to the personal information Facebook stores. As you may be able to tell, I have very few criticisms of the article as it is, my hesitation from awarding it a 10 for this section comes because I think the article makes its point and in doing so raises several other points it could discuss but limits itself to just the one. This is a shame because I think they could make this article even better, definitely something for you to consider.
Concept:	9	I like the concept and my only concern here is that you are careful not to lose the encyclopaedic tone in order to make your points, you are usually excellent at this and the article does very well in sounding like a wikipedia article. However at times this slips slightly as you make a point. I'm not going to pick out examples as the issues are very slight and I think the article would be made better by you going back and establishing this for yourself, if you find there are no issues then I have no complaints, I'd definitely suggest you take a second look through however. That's about all I have to say on this, generally an excellent job.
Prose and formatting:	8	Once again, in general this is a very high standard, there are a couple of instances where you make some syntax errors, I changed one in the preamble but there are a couple of other slight mistakes hanging about in the article and it is definitely in your interest to go back and make sure you have gotten rid of these. You could do with one more image to break up the text a bit more towards the middle but this isn't essential, if it doesn't appeal making the images slightly bigger in places would ensure that the text, particularly in the middle of the article, is broken nicely.
Images:	7	The reason for the fairly harsh score here is because I think your images could have done a lot more for your article than they do, I realise that you did this rewrite fairly swiftly, but I think the images you have retained aren't completing the article in the way they should be. They relate to the text but only because the subject matter is similar, I would consider trying to get some images of screens of facebook asking for information, for instance an image displaying the requirements to access an application like FarmVille could be captioned with something like "The ability to run a virtual farm and pick Cows and Radishes. This can be yours assuming you are happy for Facebook to flog your information to advertisers and Columbian Warlords". Perhaps I'm being overly harsh but I felt one or two new images with intelligent captions could provide an excellent backdrop to what you are talking about, feel free to come after me with a sword if you think this would derail the article entirely. I would recommend care choosing new images if you decide to do this, it is important that the subject of an image is fairly easily obtainable without making it bigger, this makes good pictures of Facebook's screens slightly harder to get hold of.
Miscellaneous:	9	My overall grade of the article.
Final Score:	42	Despite my constant whining about what you haven't put in this is a piece of excellent work and I had to work quite hard to come up with some decent criticism which is always an excellent sign. As said above I think the issues are what the article lacks rather than what you have written, what there is is excellent and even if you choose to completely disregard my suggestions this is still a very solid article. If you have any questions or comments regarding this review then feel free to leave them on my talk page. Good luck making any changes and well done.
Reviewer:	--ChiefjusticeWii 17:18, September 15, 2011 (UTC)