Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Lateral Thinking

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archived

Guidelines

FAQ

Pee Week

Committee

RotM

Lateral Thinking

Pup 06:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Concept, which must be the basis of your article if I'm using this template:	6	Don't get the wrong impression from this score, the article doesn't have a bad concept. However, being a direct parody of a Wikipedia article, it's not particularly original, and in this section I value originality over all else.
Humor, without a second u, because I'm American:	7	The humor in this article isn't bad, but overall it's not that great, either. I actually did laugh at one part, which is more than I can say for most articles. I think part of the problem here is your short sections, which allow little room for elaboration or buildup. It's difficult to mock something that people have no knowledge of and therefore no expectations about, because the whole point of humor is to break those expectations. A great example is your "Problem Solving" section. Even if I hadn't read the Wikipedia article beforehand, the section still had a two paragraph lead-in, which made the "dead body in the middle of the assembly line" come straight out of left field. More sections should be like that, though you shouldn't make every section into a serious buildup to a single punchline. Just get creative with it, enjoy yourself.
Your spelling and grammar, which probably sucks:	7	There are a few errors in here, not so much with spelling as with sentence structure. If you'd like me to, I'd be happy to go through and fix what errors I can find, as there are no serious problems and I have nothing better to do... ever. Otherwise, just read through your article a few times and look for any sentences that seem to have awkward wording. Oftentimes these problems can be fixed by simply splitting a sentence into two.
Images, or lack of:	6	The images you use in this article may not be directly related to the concept, but your captions remedy that marvelously. I would give you a higher score, but I think that you definitely need more images. For an article this size, only one or two more would do fine, and if you keep the captions in the same vein you can't go wrong.
Miscellaneous, not averaged, despite what some would have you believe:	9	Because I believe that the article overall deserves higher points than what I gave you individually.
Final Score, totaled, as most would have you believe:	35	You really do have a great article here, but I think your main problem is that you haven't expanded it far beyond the Wikipedia article it's derived from. The Wikipedia article itself isn't very long, and yours isn't much better. Just expand some of the sections, add a few screwballs here and there, and you should have a easy feature on your hands. Keep in mind, though, that if you expand the article significantly you may need to add even more images. Just something to keep in mind. Either way, this was an enjoyable read and I hope you do well if/when this finally ends up on VFH.
Me:	Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 17:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)