Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Mrthejazz/Howto: Annoy Richard Dawkins
User:Mrthejazz/Howto: Annoy Richard Dawkins[edit]
| Prose | Concept | Humour | Images | Misc | Score | Summary |
Prose and Formatting:[edit]
How good does it look and how well does it read? 6.4
Writing style
Okay, there is something that feels unpolished about this. It's like it was written hurriedly and not proofread afterwards.
Spelling
Not that I noticed or care, but that doesn't mean I looked too deeply.
Grammar
Not bad grammar, but some examples of ugly sentence structure. It doesn't read like an encyclopaedic article, or like a well thought out how to in plain English.
Layout
Sorry, I'm being really nitpicky here, but given that this is basically a bunch of 6 different methods, I'd probably change the subheaders for the good example/bad example to a {{h3}} or something, just so the TOC reads as x amount of methods and then a conclusion. It makes no real difference if you are viewing it in full version on most browsers, but lite version does odd things with headers, and given the growing popularity of smart phones, like the one I'm using now, cross browser and cross platform support is something that I am conscious of in my coding.
As I said, nitpicky, so I haven't reflected that in the scoring - especially as it's a quick fix which if I were just reviewing and not judging I'd probably do myself.
Overall appearance
It looks fine, it reads a little patchy, and could do with decent proofreading, especially if you start off with an idea of the tone that you are aiming for and your desired audience. Given the... elemental nature of your narrator, and the fact that this is a how to, I'd opt toward a simple English tone. Think about how you would say this is you were explaining it to the intellectual level 7 year old who had the grasp of adult themes of an 18 year old, and the sense of moral conscience of a 4 year old.
Concept[edit]
How good an idea is behind the article? 7
Out of left field concept which has probably come from one of those moments when two random thoughts collide - like channel hopping at 3 am. Unique (as far as I know) and worth repeating.
Humour[edit]
How funny is it? Why is it funny? How can it be funnier? 5.7
Needs a few more giggles. There are a few guffaw worthy moments - the examples of how to seduce definitely bounce out as highlights, as does the culmination with the plink section.
Images[edit]
How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting? 7
Clever use of images going from the happy to the ambivalent through to the incredulous. I'd probably add one more of the back of "Richard Dawkins" in prison fatigues or something similar, just to round out the pictorial aspect of the article with the prose, but that may just be me.
Miscellaneous[edit]
The article's overall quality - that indefinable something. 7.7
Overall feeling is that it is almost FA worthy, but needs minor tweaking. Definitely has a good solid backbone behind it.
- ↑ Just kidding - it's huge.