Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Star of David

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archived

Guidelines

FAQ

Pee Week

Committee

RotM

Star of David

One more for now. Star of David was a stub when I found it, with the premise intact that the Star was a symbol of Satan. So I just went with it, and here's the result to date. Thanks in advance, ~   13:40 app. 4.3.MMX p.s. I've done some further edits since putting this up, and can see quite a number of flaws in the piece. It's interesting to go back to a page I haven't edited on in quite awhile and see where I was then (even a few weeks ago) and what I've learned since writing on and transversing the site. If someone picks this up maybe hold off for a day (and please don't be in a hurry with my pages, no immediate need for a quick review), and I'll do some more work on it. Thanks again. Al, 14:17 same day

Well, I haven't reviewed in a while, so why not. Although, I might not finish tonight. —Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 21:23, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you. Actually give me another few hours to edit (see notes above). And after that, no hurry at all. Take as long as needed, a week or two, take a vacation. I guess I don't understand why reviews have to be done the same day or the next. And, thanks again! ~   :03 5.3.2mx

Actually, after Friday, I have to leave until Tuesday, so I'll finish it on one of those days, for sure. —Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 01:53, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Humour:	6	Your article is pretty good on humor terms, but the beginning and some certain parts of it just didn't make the standards. You picked a good idea and satirized it well, but it felt weak at some points. A section by section says: The First Paragraph. Meh It seemed a little too random. The last sentence especially. At first it's "They think Jews are satanists" and then it becomes "Jews are satanists". Sticking to the concept is pretty much a must. The "Jews Are Actually Satanists" one seems to be the theme of the rest of the article, so I would replace it with something more like that. History again, meh. First off, the beginning of the first paragraph needs to be re-worded, badly. I was thoroughly confused when I read that part."patterned after the bones of Goliath, a friend of David's whose head he'd accidently decapitated during a grotesque drinking game at a backyard barbeque." doesn't really get me in the current wording. Remember, short sentences are considered better, and the second paragraph seems to be one big run-on sentence. The start off on the third paragraph is good, but the toolbox thing seems a bit strange. What is that a reference to? The Star's Recent Excursions- Good But read above about run-on sentences. Young Occultists- OK But the stuff with hula hoops and all of that seemed unnecessary. It's fine to mention them, but giving them a full backstory is a bit much. Recent Discoveries- WeakAnother relevance issue, the part about un-earthing David's tomb seemed to have little to do with the Star of David. In fact, I would go so far as to to say you should delete this paragraph altogether-maybe even rewrite the whole section. The Star of David in popular culture- Alright. But I would suggest you be less outright in the section about McDonalds. The rest of the article seemed much more subtle. The thing about Des Moines- why does it matter that he's from Des Moines? I like something like "McDonalds briefly named a lean pork sandwich the "Star of David" until a customer complained that "Eating the meal made them feel like a Satanist". (Don't copy that though, it's actually terrible, it just goes in a better context. Oh, and I did get your original joke, before you worry) Also, the article ended pretty abruptly. Can you make some kind of conclusion paragraph work? Ending something abruptly annoys readers.
Concept:	7	As I said in the beginning "You picked a good point and satirized it well". An article about the Star of David being a Satanist symbol is a good idea. The execution seemed pretty sporadic, however. In some places it was great, in others I was confused. A problem that mares your execution a bit is poor wording. Without proper wording, your article becomes confusing. This section is always short for me because I give my advice in the humor section.
Prose and formatting:	5	Ouch. I found quite a few grammar and spelling errors. I could actually go correct them right now, if you'd like. Your grammar actually hurts your humor in some places, because good grammar gives people easy reading. Easy reading usually=more laughs. Remember that this is supposed to look encyclopedic, and having grammar errors hurts that feel. Oh, and only one formatting thing that bugged me: in "The Star of David in popular culture" the two pictures so close to each other the list look too narrow in those places. You really need to adjust their placement. (I would move the card picture up because it applies to earlier list bullet, if I were you)
Images:	7	The first two images are fine, I wouldn't change a thing. In the third one, the reference to memes is unnecessary, and the caption is a bit too long. Does it need that much text in there? Beyond the first sentence, the caption is slightly confusing. (Probably due to the wording, again)The mummy image takes up a lot of space, especially with a caption as long as that one. It needs to be made smaller. Oh, and one last thing: caption text doesn't need to be bold. It draws the attention away from the picture, and worse, the article itself.
Miscellaneous:	6.3	Back in my day, we didn't have averaging templates...
Final Score:	31.3	The article wasn't really bad, but there are some fixings needed. I think though, that once you change some bad wording, inconsistencies, grammar and spelling issues, and lose the bold text in the image captions, and some other stuff, you'll be golden. (Oh, and nice rewriting job. Really. I factored in that it was a rewrite, and scored appropriately, don't worry.)
Reviewer:	—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 09:15, March 8, 2010 (UTC)