Smashed something together, but I have skipped over some other things that I could still mention, like this Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe7zdB0z2-U, but don't want to describe it. Should I stop? Please let me know.
TillDillBill(info/talk) 06:43, February 8, 2019 (UTC)
|
|
Added 06:43, February 8, 2019 (UTC)
|
[[Template:Review request/{{#time: ymd|06:43, February 8, 2019 (UTC)]]
Reviewed[edit]
A little bit about the reviewer
How and why is it funny? Any suggestions?
{{{Hscore}}}
How good is an idea behind the article?
{{{Cscore}}}
How good does it look and how well does it read?
{{{Pscore}}}
How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting?
{{{Iscore}}}
The article's overall quality - that indefinable something.
{{{Mscore}}}
An overall summation of the article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-- (talk) 02:45, March 1, 2019 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you edit, it goes beyond just adding material. You have to make the old stuff match the new in all ways: tone, past tense/present tense, writing style/viewpoint. You should also be correcting old grammar, spelling, etc. problems. The run-on sentences make this an unreadable mess, maybe why nobody was able to do a review earlier. Even simple stuff like Rian/Ryan Johnson got missed. This article was tagged since a reader can't get very far without losing their way.
Look at Wikipedia articles for basic style and syntax. The lead mention of the article subject is always in bold and since this a movie, it should be in bold italic. Headers and subheaders should not have every word capitalized. Uncyclopedia follows Wikipedia style except when someone decides to go freestyle.
Old existing writing is not holy, except for Featured Articles. Read the old StarWars articles on Uncyclopedia that despite lots of edits, are mostly crap. If you go too far (unlikely in the case of the many unfunny articles and stubs existing) the article will just get reverted, and you can still argue for your revisions.
The sidebar is a very good add but after the caption is just factual stuff, losing all humor steam. If that's all there is, I'd just shorten the sidebar.
Your basics are pretty good. It is highly appreciated that you can write this without having to use beatdown after beatdown. That is a typical thing to do, particularly in biographies and movie/TV articles. It gets old really fast. You do not have to cover the plot fully or in detail or even accurately.
A couple more images would be good to add.
Summary: A strong basic cleanup is needed to make someone want to read the whole article. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This was a Pee Review by -- (talk) 02:45, March 1, 2019 (UTC)
{{{Yes}}}