Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Ussher

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archived

Guidelines

FAQ

Pee Week

Committee

RotM

Ussher

I did a rewrite of this after it was on VFD. Its short, but is a one trick pony article, so being long just makes it rambling.--Mnbvcxz 01:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Mnbvcxz 01:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article is being reviewed by: UU - natter (While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead). (Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole).

OK, you've waited long enough for a review, possibly because you're the only one who was reviewing over christmas. Time to sort that out. --UU - natter 10:26, Dec 30

Humour:	7	What's there is solid, and it's a little more than a one-trick article - there's more than one chuckle to be had from it, and it's a decent read. However, it is still a little short. While I agree to an extent that this could ramble if expanded in the wrong way, I'd say there are opportunities to add extra content and extra funny without making it feel rambling. I like what you have in place here - the good ol' device of straight-faced narration that accepts the theory as doctrine is used well, and, crucially, not overdone - one of my chief bugbears with this kind of article is when people feel the need to make it obvious that they think the theory is crackpot by overstating the case in the opposite direction, if you follow me. Glad to see you haven't done that. So what could you expand? Well, I feel there's another paragraph or two in the evolution section for starters - you dismiss it rather quickly, and spending a little more time explaining how people came to accept that this seemingly plausible theory was simply crushed under the weight of Ussher's unarguable findings could be fun. Plus, you can look at how Ussher's chronology seems to be remembered when other similar ones by the likes of (I think) Bede and Newton were forgotten, and possibly spend a little time on detailing how he arrived at the completely reasonable nomber of years for the lifespans, why he didn't feel the need to add a "give or take" to his precise date, that kind of thing.
Concept:	7	A good, solid concept, and the kind of thing we aren't doing so much these days - proper parody, as opposed to just comedic writing. I like it. The 7 is, from me, an above average score (feeling, as I do, that 5 is the average in a 1 - 10 scale), and reflects the fact that I like this. It misses an 8 or 9 because it is a little limited in scope, as you acknowledge above. I've made a few suggestions for a little expansion, but I don't see a mass of opportunities for further broadening of the scope. It's tricky, you could almost say the nature of the subject paints you into a corner a little here. Hum. Of course, articles can always be expanded by exploring more and more absurd concepts, but I think that would weaken this article, as the feel is nicely consistent in its encyclopaedic style, and more obvious absurdity would spoil that.
Prose and formatting:	8	Formatting and prose are, in the main, fine. Consistent, hitting the right tone, well written. There are a couple of lapses, such as: "which in now only brought up irrational fanatics" ("which is", "brought up by"); "like a Arcimedes before him" ("Archimedes"); "more primitive animals tended to appear deeper and the fossil record" ("deeper in the fossil record") - but we all make a few of those.
Images:	7	The right number for an article of this length, although if you do expand a little, it may stand a third. They fit with the encyclopaedic tone and are appropriately captioned. However, they aren't funny, and don't really add anything funny, so they get an above average score but not an outstanding one, which I think is reasonable.
Miscellaneous:	7.3	Averaged.
Final Score:	36.3	OK, what we have here is a well-rescued article. It's nicely written, consistent, and a decent parody. It stands to me as a good article, and an amusing read. It's not really saying "VFH" to me, because it's a good read if you give it time, and it's nicely subtle, but it lacks the big laugh factor that helps on there - although I have been surprised before. What I'd say is this is a good article, and the kind of thing we need more of. You can be pleased with the job you've done. It will stand some expansion, I think, and it's up to you if you're happy as it is or if you want to try and find the big chuckle that would give it a chance on VFH. Hope this helps. As always, it is only my opinion, others are available if you wait long enough, and good luck!
Reviewer:	--UU - natter 11:05, Dec 30