Jimmy the Hellhound 16:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC) OK, well this has been on the queue longer than anything else with all the changes to it, so I'll get stuck in to it! -- 09:45, Mar 13 This is the second pee review for this article.
| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdfs:label
| - Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Nocturnal Hippie Artist (2)
|
| rdfs:comment
| - Jimmy the Hellhound 16:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC) OK, well this has been on the queue longer than anything else with all the changes to it, so I'll get stuck in to it! -- 09:45, Mar 13 This is the second pee review for this article.
|
| dcterms:subject
| |
| Mcomment
| |
| Pcomment
| - A couple of typos . A couple of clumsy sentences .
That big block o'text in the second section could do with an edit as well. Not necessarily to lose content - it adds well to the off-kilter feel - but to split it up a bit. People tend to tune out when faced with large blocks like that, so just adding a line break here and there would help a bit.
My main issue with the formatting though, is the structure. I'd have maybe 3 main sections, "The Artist", "The House", "Known Associates" or something similar. Then put your content under these three with sub-headings. This would help quite a bit, I feel, as what you have at the moment is lots of quite small sections, and I think for a more encyclopedic feel you need to seem as if you have fewer, larger sections. Putting the same content in a different order using sub-headings should, I think, achieve that feel nicely, and also make the flow of the article feel more logical. If it's obvious how the bits fit together and follow on from each other, an article becomes easier to read. Have a think about this. If you're not sure how to structure it, or you want me to explain what I mean a bit more, give me a shout on my talk page.
|
| Icomment
| - Fine and dandy. So why a lower score than your last review? Well, the article's longer - and an article of this length needs one more pic at the end. If you remove those last two sections completely, no worries in this area - if you keep and rewrite them, you need another pic.
|
| Pscore
| |
| Ccomment
| - I know the kind of guy you mean, I think, which may be worrying! The overall idea is fine, and this approach to the article works quite well. My main issue with this is the structure, which I'll touch on in the next section.
|
| Cscore
| |
| Hcomment
| - OK, I'll admit I hadn't a clue what to expect from this article, so I was pleasantly surprised - it's not bad! The approach you've taken here is an improvement on the diary style and works quite well. I particularly like the "Chair Incident", "The Parties" and "The Friends". The other bits are mainly short, but do well to add to the off-kilter "feel" of the piece. However, the last 2 sections let you down a bit, in that they're just lists. There are a few decent ideas in there, but they would be better served being converted into prose rather than lists. You may have noticed lists aren't hugely popular around here - any good ideas con usually be improved by being taken out of list form and written properly. 1 short list might be OK, 2 consecutively is too much.
|
| Iscore
| |
| Hscore
| |
| Fcomment
| - This is pretty good, and an interesting read. Have a good thing about the comments I've made, particularly about the structure, and I think you'll have a pretty darn good article on your hands. Hope this helps, and as ever: this is only my opinion, others are available. And good luck!
|
| dbkwik:uncyclopedi...iPageUsesTemplate
| |
| Signature
| - --Under_user/sig2 (11:35, Mar 13)
|
| abstract
| - Jimmy the Hellhound 16:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC) OK, well this has been on the queue longer than anything else with all the changes to it, so I'll get stuck in to it! -- 09:45, Mar 13 This is the second pee review for this article.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)