Talk:Capitalism: in grammar
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
This is a pee review I got for this article before I touched it up and added pictures to it.
There is a chance that you don't know much about me, which is cool. I've been hanging around here for a few years, and have written a bunch of feature articles. Two of those - Game:Alone in the dark and Microsoft knowledge base - have become top ten of the year articles. I'm also one of the top ten most prolific Pee reviewers (despite having neglected it for a while). All of this is said just so you know I have some experience at this stuff.
Keeping all that in mind, everything that is said in a review is opinion. There may be a basis behind what I say, but I'm critical simply because it helps you improve. So take on board any advice, but don't take it personally. (And in the end, feel free to ignore it all if you don't see any value.)
Back to the review bit
Now I have a tendency to mix in humour and concept together. The logic is that the concept builds the comedic frame of an article, and the humour is usually the gags that fit into the concept. A bad concept with good humour is average. A good concept with bad humour is average. Get the two working together and it's fantastic.
So the concept here is actually pretty good - using a term relating to a political/economic model and making a parallel to a grammatical concept. Grammatical concept articles work well when they are well fleshed out. The best example I can think of is Homophones (grammar), although I also like Spellcheck for a similar concept.
This has given you the flexibility to do funky stuff with text. The only concern is that you don't sacrifice content for flashiness. Vitiligo works on the basis of having a funky textual concept. The problem with that article is the text itself isn't that good, so it succeeds on one front to fail on another.
This also falls into the aspect of layout and overall look, which is mentioned below as well.
From the political side of the concept, you've tended to draw towards a negative view of Capitalism, and fallen for the easy joke (somewhere between Mitt Romney and Darth Vader). This is probably where the concept falls a little. Having it more in line with Capitalism as a political construct (as in the real thing) is likely to elicit more laughs. HTBFANJS talks about using truth as opposed to complete opposites. Capitalism is a dry subject, admittedly, but even a very dry subject can be used for humour - mainly by highlighting the absurdity in the reality. (Six Hats takes a very dull corporate concept and - while always keeping within the basic premise of it - actually highlights the utter stupidity of it.)
|Concept:||7||So while there is quality and scope within the concept, the humour itself needs to be worked on to get to the level that you are aiming for. The second section of the article is probably the strongest part of the overall. It introduces a gag that works well. The concern is to not overuse the same gag too much throughout the remainder of the article.
The errant capitalisation of Wrong also made me smile. I'd be tempted to change it to wroNg just to highlight the joke and add a mild element of oddness to the overall. The element of surprise is a major part of comedy - including textual comedy.
|Prose and formatting:||5||The issue with oddness in text though is that it breaks the flow of reading. Breaking it slightly is good - shattering it is bad. If your reader has to re-read the line a couple of times to grasp the meaning, you lose the capacity for the occasional twist that brings in the comedy.
It's the pie in the face rule. A pie in the face when it's not expected is funny. A pie in the face at the same time every time is predictable and dull.
I haven't gone through the grammar and spelling of this with a fine tooth comb, but there are a few tortured sentences in this - especially in the latter part - that damage what you're trying to say. Because you are using a textual gag, your grammar has to be fantastic in order to carry the humour to the reader. (In short, assume your audience is stupid, and spell it out in simple English. Ease of reading is vital in comedy.)
One trick I use with this is to read the article aloud while facing into a corner. Yes - if anyone is watching you you'll look like an idiot. The advantage in this though is that you'll hear aloud the phrasing of the sentence. That way you'll notice sentences that don't sound “right”. This may help you clean up the general readability.
Another thing you may want to look at is Small-caps may also be useful in here somewhere. I don't know though. I'd focus on the content first though.
|Images:||0||There are no images. There could be one or two in here that fit the concept, and they help.|
|Miscellaneous:||7.5||This reads like the work of a new author, but one with a lot of potential. I'm honestly looking forward to see how your writing develops.
Oh - the bit in the brackets at the end. Just create a ==See also== section. It's expected, and looks more encyclopaedic.
|Final Score:||25.5||Hope that all helps.|
|Reviewer:||Pup • Talkies • 02:36 08 Apr 2013|