Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Fred Reich

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Fred Reich

I've not finished the article, but it is nearing an end almost certainly, and there's plenty to be looking over. Knucmo2 13:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Overview: long rambling(-ish) article. I hestitate to call it rambling; I've seen a lot worse.

Humour: 6.5 It has humor; however, I get the feeling that its a bit forced and all over the place. There is no real "main idea" to your article, or rather, your main idea is too broad; it looks like its just running all over the place looking for jokes; however, I have seen worse. You might want to try to keep your topic more narrow

Also, because its a made up biography, you'll really need to keep consistency high; otherwise, you run the risk of looking random. This is because the reader does not have any previous knowledge of the subject matter. Try to avoid "surprise" information in the article, unless its needed for a joke. You may even consider added more foreshadowing in the introduction.

You might also consider doing some pruning, espeically if you have any early filibustering remaining in your article. (Filibustering is basically space wasters for the purpose of making an article look long, such as lists and redundant quotes.)
Concept: 6 Generally, made up biographies are weak; however, it appears to be working, more or less, in this case. Like I said above, you might want to narrow the focus of your article. Also, you might want to add a see also section at the end.
Prose and formatting: 7 Prose looks ok, but try to avoid long sentences, as they decrease readability and give your article a feeling of "ramblingness" or even randomness; whenever you see an "and" "but" or semicolon in your article, you should ask yourself, "is this really needed?" especially in already long sentences; the modern reader has a short attention span and is mentally taxed by long sentences. See how hard that was to read?

Additionally, you have a red link in the article. That does add to your article's ugliness a bit.

Also, a quoticide might be in order.
Images: 6.5 Nothing bad, but nothing that stands out either. The first image is needed; it's the "arbitrary picture of the subject matter" pic which is almost always needed. The second one is too blurry; I really can't see what is going on in it. The 3rd one seems unrelated, and probably throws the article a little off. The forth one is ok. You'll probably want at least 2 more good pics in the article, keeping the first and maybe the fourth.
Miscellaneous: 6 Improvability score: your article is improvable, but it would take some work and originality on your part. Its not so bad that I'd suggest cutting your losses, but its not going to be easy either. If your trying to get a VFH article, and you have something else your working one, you might (or might not) want to but this one on the back burner.
Final Score: 32 You have a fairly good article here. Btw, am I missing a reference something in this article? I'm assuming your writing about a random entirely fictional person.
Reviewer: --Mnbvcxz 01:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mnbvcxz, I will take these points into account. The reference is fairly obvious - the character's name is a shallow pun on 'Third Reich'. He is entirely fictional, but situated in the context of 3rd Reich. --Knucmo2 14:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal tools