Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/NASA
NASA[edit source]
just finished up this total rewrite, as the article before was the worst. i feel it is vastly better; looking for an in-depth review. 22:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
smuggler gave me some opinions, they're on the talk page. looking for a more in-depth review. 02:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'll take a look at this, for now, enjoy Noel with this free coupon. — Sir Sycamore (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
For a bumming session with Noel Fielding |
Humour: | 7 | Good stuff here, good humour throughout - I have a few gripes about formatting which I’ll go though below.
|
Concept: | 7 | Great place to work from, you seem to have good understanding and overall a decent handling though, good focus on the topic, I’d say it more a question of sharpening and stripping back a little. Good article |
Prose and formatting: | 6 | Now, (rolls up sleeves) I think {{wikipedia}} should be added under the first picture, I also think Having the Table of Contents should be added - its a helpful and creates an authentic look. More linkage and les subsections. I also like using citations or footnotes - and there good to have.
The reason why I think there should be more of this is that, (mainspace) articles should parody wikipedia/encyclopedic writing at some level - I think losing the wikipedia look is a bad thing. I always advocate and aim for readers to at a glance, not be able to tell them apart if possible - this adds to the humour factor and draws readers in. For the actual prose I went though a lot of the stuff before, I think the paragraphs are a tad blocky and convoluted (this is a minor job) otherwise the prose is written well and there’s not any serious complaints (spelling/crapness etc). No major complaints and coming close under preference than fact – still it would be nice to see the formatting change bit. |
Images: | 6 | relevant, captions also fit in with the images it feels like there a few too many I like the aligned right look particularly in an article of this length. They could be a tad larger, although this does contradict my encyclopedic rant - again this is a matter of preference rather than a rule - although the article does look very full with the current mount of images as well as the first one being a lot larger then the others. |
Miscellaneous: | 7 | Good stuff, a bit of spit and polish and this will sail VFH |
Final Score: | 33 | I hope I have been helpful, should there be any questions/queries do not hesite to leave a not on my talkpage:) |
Reviewer: | — Sir Sycamore (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |