Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Gore Theory
Gore Theory[edit]
Striker2117 20:25, February 12, 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't done a review in ages. Give me a few hours. --Matfen 12:43, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
- haha I was tagging this right as you saved your edit, you got it -- 07:45 EST 13 Feb, 2010
- lol, somehow I could sense it as well. --Matfen 13:20, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
- haha I was tagging this right as you saved your edit, you got it -- 07:45 EST 13 Feb, 2010
| Prose and Formatting: The writing style, spelling, grammar, layout and overall appearance. |
7 | Firstly, you need to break up some (most?) of your paragraphs. I know you may feel it's a bit silly having 4 line paragraphs, but if you just preview it, you'll see how much better it looks. It will also be of great help due to the complexity of some of the concepts in the article. There are some good cues for where to break at. In my opinion, I'd have breaks at "Believing that this was an omen sent from god", and then possibly having a break at "After many days".
On Proof, I'd break at "Many critics claim". Then on Criticism, break at "They did find a new argument". Just adding these breaks to your article will make it so much easier to read. Now all that rubbish concerning paragraphing is over, I can get to the real meat of the prose and formatting. Most articles, Wiki or Uncyc, begin by introducing the concept at the forefront. It's like the page title at the top doesn't exist, right? Well, anyway, I'd start off something like, "Gore Theory is a scientific (assumption/conjecture/premise/proposition/hypothesis? You choose) which essentially states that if there is a slight change over a short amount of time (I'd get rid of the 9 months to 1 picosecond thing, just for simplicity to begin with and get the concept grounded with the reader as comfortably as possible. I'm not saying dumb down your article, just dumb down the opening paragraph to make sure R-tards like me will continue reading.) that change will continue at the same rate, if not at an increasing rate, for the rest of time." Then you should more fully introduce Al Gore's presence as the "creative thinker" of this theory. So you can bring in what you originally started off with by saying, "Taking its name from unarguably one of the most genius (I'd remove the idiotic for now) men in recent history... (then you could touch on how much Al Gore has been praised for coming up with this revolutionary idea. And after that, I would hint at others disagreeing with him, claiming something like his thesis is based upon lies and manipulation of data.) In the creation section, you have a massive sentence in brackets. That wouldn't be too bad if you ended with a full stop after it, but once you leave the brackets, you keep going with a sentence. Kinda difficult to read. You could just say created "by" Al Gore, and then have a full stop after the brackets and begin a new sentence. Then introduce how he came up with the idea: it was getting warmer. Replace the "and" with a comma on "and happily sucking away electricity." You should look through the article looking for ways to shorten your wording a bit, for example "or that it was because spring was turning into summer" could be "or because it was merely spring turning into summer". When you're quoting him, you may wish to italicize them to make them stand out. "He said that considering a frog in a pot of water, what would happen if we slowly boiled the frog in the water?" Here, there aren't any speech marks, and putting question marks into an article without it being from direct quotes is a bit weird. Also, I'd reword it to: he said that "considering a frog were in a pot of water, what would happen if we slowly boiled the water". It better reflects global warming this way, as we're supposedly boiling the planet, which indirectly boils us. We're not boiling ourselves directly. "He also left his house's light all on and ran 5 generators outside for no reason other than to create heat." |
| Concept: How good an idea is behind the article? |
8.5 | The whole "it's a myth" thing has already kind of been done with the actual Al Gore article claiming he is himself a myth. Still, I liked this article a lot, and didn't find it was retreading old ground. The use of complex, "intellectual" algebraic equations to back up his theories reminded me of the Intelligent Mathematics article. I also really liked it towards the end which touched on his use of smug rhetorics to distract us from how stupid his ideas really are. |
| Humour: How funny is it? Why is it funny? How can it be funnier? |
7.75 | The formatting might have made it too difficult for me to get the jokes right away, so some of the humour in this article was a bit lost. Hopefully, it will be much funnier when you get the right paragraphing though. And while I commend the concepts you have, I feel that you don't make your jokes very obvious. I think you should make more of his use of rhetorics and analogies to crush his opponents' arguments. You should inform us, as well, that we aren't supposed to be able to follow his equations. I actually spent ages trying to make sense of them, wondering whether I was really stupid. Well, I am, but you should make it a bit clearer that the joke with the equations is not what they mean, but that we cannot follow them. |
| Images: How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting? |
7.5 | They're relevent, but I feel the placing of them is just so slightly off. Ideally, you should have the first image right at the top, next to the introductory text, rather than underneath. Also, the caption "Arguing with Al Gore is futile because of his genies." The mispelling made me laugh, but I'm sure you meant to say "genius".
On the second image, I think if you move it down about 2 centimetres, so it starts along with the paragraph that starts "realizing", it would look really good. Third image, I think you should move that a bit lower, so it starts at the paragraph beginning "many others". You could still keep it at "in a month" paragraph, but you still haven't go it level, as the picture starts about 1cm higher than the text. |
| Miscellaneous: The article's overall quality - that indefinable something. |
7.7 | Averaged using Pee. Just a random sidenote, you may wish to find some categories for this article to go in. Can't think of any to recommend, but the category banner that goes at the bottom helps the article seem finished off. |
| Final Score: How much can it be improved and what are the most important areas to work on. |
38.45 | A fairly good article, that only needs some reformatting and a little bit more work to achieve greatness. |
| Reviewer: | --Matfen 15:05, February 13, 2010 (UTC) | |