Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Tony Ahn
Tony Ahn[edit]
This is my first article. I'd appreciate a review and feel free to make it funnier. Pilipinis (talk) 12:10, December 4, 2016 (UTC)
| Added 12:10, December 4, 2016 (UTC) |
Reviewed[edit]
Reviewed[edit]
How and why is it funny? Any suggestions?
read up on Adult Babies to play up the weirdness of the article, this might work when you tag the first one as some of the admins didn't get the pointed nature of how funny this can get when they're interlinking all the other articles. Focus on the weirdness with this one.
How good is an idea behind the article?
Flesh it up a bit and do some fact checking, remember fact is stranger than fiction at times. See the examples with White people, Paula Deen, Amazon.com, Luke Perry, Illinois, Florida, and Fan fiction. The Fan Fiction article was fleshed up a bit and allowed fanwriters own words to damn them.
How good does it look and how well does it read?
too many of these I don't know what the hell you're trying to invite but remove those and create some punchy moments to knock them on their asses, but careful not to cross the line if the person died. Those who passed away recently you have to approach with a gentle hand. One may never know if their family will be watching.
How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting?
go further with them, see Fantard and Encyclopedia Dramatica (Website) for examples of what we did here. If you have one that's funny and invites a RationalWiki type response you know you touched a fucking nerve.
Reviewed[edit]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(talk) 00:36, March 18, 2019 (UTC)
Reviewed[edit]
How and why is it funny? Any suggestions?
The humor relies too much on profanity and nonsense. The different names in the infobox, the intro, and the {{About}} tag without a redirect back to the same article confuses the reader.
How good is an idea behind the article?
The concept has potential, but this article doesn't live up to this potential.
How good does it look and how well does it read?
The formatting is definitely solid.
How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting?
The images doesn't fit at all with the article, and doesn't really help the article at all.
An overall summation of the article.
It isn't total garbage, but in a nutshell, it needs: To stop being so nonsenical and to have some actual humor.