Wikipedia:Peer review/Uncyclopedia/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I believe that this article has improved since last time and would like to see what others think. My goal is to make this a featured article on April Fool's Day, so any comments would be greatly appreciated. The Placebo Effect 21:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Hmm, I think it's going to be hard to get this featured because there is a severe shortage of independent sources. Although it's been mentioned in a few reliable sources, and attracted a bit of controversy, there's still not that much that has been written about it. But anyway, suggestions for improvements:

  • Get rid of the interlinks to uncyclopedia and Wikipedia namespace pages. They just shouldn't be there - if you want to use an external link, put it in a reference.
  • Sorry if I was unclear. What I meant is that a wikilink taking you to the Wikipedia namespace (or the Uncyclopedia namespace) is a self-reference and should almost always be avoided. People expect wikilinks to get them to other Wikipedia pages in the main namespace; to suddenly end up in Wikipedia or Uncyclopedia namespace is inconsistent and can be confusing. If you're attempting to prove a statement using the link, add it as a cite on the end of the sentence. Trebor 16:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • mostly seen as a collection of garbage (as evidenced by proposed logos depicting garbage cans) - original research, proposed logos don't indicate what it is mostly seen as.
  • There's a repeat of information about people - Wilde and Mr. T are mentioned twice. Group it together so it flows better.
  • I felt that the article flowed a little better with those The Placebo Effect 00:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. I was just slightly confused as to the structure. I would've thought "Notable personages" would have come under Content, and I'm not sure of the relation of Mediawiki to Notable Personages either. Trebor 00:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • saw what you meant, realized i was wrong and fixed other section you mentioned. The Placebo Effect 13:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Uncyclopedia has been referenced online... - aren't most of the publications listed online archives of a printed source? In which case, the word "online" isn't strictly correct.
  • ''True to the traditional tongue-in-cheek style - traditional sounds a bit grandiose, just "tongue-in-cheek" will do (or possibly there's a more encyclopaedic word).
  • Is the list of uncyclopedias really necessary? You've already mentioned the ones of a half-decent size, so I don't think you need to include them all.

It's a pretty good article, but just because it's a humorous topic doesn't mean the quality can be less. At present, I'm very doubtful it would pass FA. Trebor 23:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)