Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:John Lydon/Zapper

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archived

Guidelines

FAQ

Pee Week

Committee

RotM

Nintendo Zapper

I know I don't have any links and it's not categorized. I just want a review on the content that is already there. I've been sitting on this one for about a month, debating on whether to blank it or main space it. --—John Lydon 17:47, September 16, 2010 (UTC) —John Lydon 17:47, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

This Falcon will no hesitate to peck out your eyes if you review this article. That is probably because PeregrineFalcon999 has booked it. You have been warned.

I'll do this, though that depends wether I can get it in-depth.-- (CUN) 08:27, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Humour:	5.187	Hey there John. I know why you’re a bit unsure what do with it. In my opinion it definitely isn’t the best it can be, but has enough potential for you to keep it and work on it a bit. Which is really what you need to do here. I’ve seen you write some great works, so I know you can improve this. The main problem here is in the concept section, but there are still things I would like to go into here. Your article definitely isn’t void of humor. There are a few moments that gave me chuckles – I liked the line on Clay Pigeons especially. I like the kind of sarcastic tone in it. I don’t know whether you meant for it to sound sarcastic, but it’s a good line. I find there are many more chances to put these kind of sly, sarcastic comments in, and I think you could use those style of comments more. Don’t overdo them, of course, but as that was the best parts of the article in my opinion, you could use that a bit more. These type of comments that I mentioned above are better than simply ‘It sucked’, or ‘It was horrible’. These are quite common throughout your article, so you should try out for better ways to put out your point. Not only will it be more interesting and add some variety, but will be much funnier. So have a shot at improving those. I also find that’s the majority of the humor here – simply saying about how annoying or bad the game or products were. There are million different types of humor out there, so I’m not going to go into it. Sorry that I can’t say much about it, but try and think of some different way to add humor into your article. There are also a few smaller points I want to make in this section. First of all, you don’t actually explain what the Zapper is. Ok, it is pretty easy to work out that it is a plastic gun you hold and point at the screen to fire at your enemies or prey. Still, you should actually go into what the product itself is. Not only will it be easier for a random reader to understand, but it will give you some more area to add in humor. You also have missed out on a chance to go into what actually happened when you played the game. I know in a review you don’t just detail what happens when you play a game, but it would be good to write about your actually playing the game. It could show some good chances for humor.
Concept:	4.199	Ok. Here is the biggest problem overall – your concept is your biggest weakness. You don’t really have much of a concept. You start off reviewing Duck Hunt, then say it is too simple to review, decide to review a different product, then go back to reviewing Duck Hunt. You really have to decide what you are going to say here, what you are going to talk about, then drive it home more clearly. At the moment it’s a bit of a muddle and hard to get your head around, which confuses the reader and drowns out humor. So try and concentrate on defining exactly what you want to talk about. I’m also not quite sure what you’re trying to tell us about the Zapper in general. At first you talk about it as if it is a great relic, then say all it’s games are completely crap. Once again, you just need to concentrate on what exactly you want to say here. What impression do you want to give your reader of this product? Then express it as clearly as possible. Both of these points are very similar, but very important. You have to concentrate on this, because it will help overall.
Prose and formatting:	5.701	In the way of formatting, your article doesn’t look horrible. Ok, you know it doesn’t have links, so I want bother with going into that. But do remember to add them. ‘The Games’ section doesn’t look great, but that’s not a huge problem. I have also spotted a couple of typos here and there, such as ‘list’ where it should be ‘listing’, and a few other little things. Go through your article and pick them out as it’s not bad enough for the {{Proofread}} template. So, the biggest problem in this section is your prose. It needs a bit of improvement with the review style. It’s a bit too much just talking about the product, and not enough actually telling how good it is, what you did or did not like, etc. Really work on improving this, because you have strayed quite a bit from the review feel here.
Images:	5.099	Nothing greatly special here. The most important thing here is the fact that you haven’t thumbnailed your images, therefore you have lost the chance to write captions. Captions are great to add to humor, so it would be good if you added some.
Miscellaneous:	5.814	Averaged your scores, then added on the necessary decimals.
Final Score:	26	Sorry that wasn’t very long, but I think I covered a lot in there. All of my points are very important, so you should work on improving all of them. I know you already assumed that this needed improvement, but with the right improvement, this could be a strong article.
Reviewer:	-- (CUN) 09:09, September 19, 2010 (UTC)