Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Horton Hears a Who! (film)
Horton Hears a Who! (film)[edit]
Pythonofdoom 23:15, 8 November 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, I'll take a look, but this won't be pretty. --UU - natter 14:23, Nov 11
| Humour: | 2 | OK, first observation: there's not much here, is there? It's a one section stub, rather than an article. That's a problem right there - you need more content.
As to what's there, I'm sorry, but there's not much going on. You've got a one line intro which tells us little to nothing. The rest is mainly one paragraph about the plot of the film, but with drugs, sex, and hoes in. It's short, the sex, drugs and hoes references are juvenile and predictable, and not really funny, and that's pretty much it. Then there's a list to finish up. Hum. OK, sorry to be brutal there, but this kind of article tends to get deleted on here, and if I gave you any other impression, you'd get confused when it was deleted. Juvenile humour, sex jokes and hoe references can work on here, but not when there's nothing else to the article, when it's so short, and when they're all very basic ones. Take a look at the following links:
Then take another look at your article, and flesh it out. Add more jokes, and different ideas. Add more sections, and a couple of pics. Give it some love until you feel it matches up well against the links I've given up there, then bring it back here to hopefully get a much more positive review. |
| Concept: | 2 | You don't really have one. This is a problem - good writing stems from a good concept. If you have a strong central idea (not just "I'll write an article about Horton Hears A Who") then you'll find jokes and sections pretty much suggest themselves. So think about how you're going to approach the article - is it a straight up wikipedia style article about the film? Is it a review of the film? Is it a pretentious film critic utterly slating the film (or, conversely, trying to argue the film is actually art on a parallel with the best of the medium)? Whatever, work out how you're going to approach the article, then go back and write it. |
| Prose and formatting: | 3 | There isn't much to it, but you still manage to include a few typos ("destroies", "themselvs", "crak"), and the prose is generally lacking. The good news is with writing that practice makes perfect, so keep going, add more to it, and hopefully you can make it more readable. |
| Images: | 0 | There aren't any. A quick Google on the title will bring some back, and you can upload them to the site and add them to the page. You need images. |
| Miscellaneous: | 1.8 | Averaged. |
| Final Score: | 8.8 | Wow, that's a bad score, right? You probably hate me right now. Sorry dude, but I'm trying to be honest, and trying to help. As I say, in its current state, this article is likely to get deleted as soon as the construction tag runs out. The links I've given you are the best ways to find inspiration to improve the article, so go read 'em, and then put some more work in.
Remember though, that some of our best writers started out creating stubby articles like this one, and had their stuff deleted a few times. But they persevered, improved, and found their writing style got much better. Then they started getting featured articles. So don't get discouraged - if you like, resolve to show me what you can do, and make this article so damn good that I'll change my tune and call you a comedy genius. Whatever helps you. Finally: this is only my opinion. If you don't like it or agree with it, others are available. And good luck! |
| Reviewer: | --UU - natter 14:48, Nov 11
| |