Talk:Celebrity Manufacture

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 09:37, April 10, 2008 by DJ Irreverent (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

edit Missing the point

I really think that this article needs to be put into Uncyclopedic form, that is to say that this article has NO first paragraph that states what the article is about, for example: Celebrity Manufacture is... and then briefly explain what it is. Without it, the article doesn't work as a "straight" Uncyclopedia article and instead reads like a feature story. And who is Magnus whoever he is? Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 00:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This issue of formatting was semi-raised on VFH...I liken it to an UnNews investigative report: its kind of in a grey area between being a regular article and being an UnNews piece (which explains the lack of intro paragraph -- I was going to bold the word 'Celebrity' when I did a minor edit, but it doesn't make sense that way). I recommended some pee, but I don't know if that will help with this issue...
As for Magnus, he's all part of the show! ...maybe you just don't get it? ;) --THINKER 00:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
My feeling is that if you feel that its half way between Unnews and Uncyclopedia, then its Unnews. The basics are that you tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you told them. In any event, it has to contain an intro-paragraph, one way or another, otherwise its just confusing - even reporting for Unnews you have to tell people what its about in the first paragraph - the old inverted pyramid. And if you'll note, Unnews articles follow a structure, something this lacks. If it remains unstructured as it is, I won't be able to support it on VFH. It does need to go to Pee Review though in my opinion. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 01:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

edit CPS

Bmup smaller The Proofreading Service has proofreaded your article. Like it? Need more proofreading? Click here!


Twice, actually, by Mitch 1 2 and myself. I put in a few hyphens, made all the dashes the same length (for aesthetic reasons), and took out some of the semicolons. God, there were a lot of semicolons. Most of the rest was fine as it was, though, which is why I went back to the CPS page and found that it had already been done. Oh well. — Sir Wehp! (t!) (c!) — 05:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

edit From Pee Review

My latest article, an experiment written in the style of a magazine feature. The formatting isn't meant to be photorealistic it just gives a general idea of what it's supposed to be. Any critiques or suggestions would be helpful. I think the joke density in the first half is a bit low so I'd be greatful for any ideas on how to improve that. --Winstanley1 18:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Humour: 7 Some great moments, such as "this man is about to be forced to drink a variety of refreshing soft drinks before being shot in the face" - the irony of the word "refreshing" satirizes advertising well. "Packaged and sold to orphans so nothing goes to waste" is ironic in a kind of deadpan way - the straight face with which you write this makes it effective. "We're writing the coroner's report next week" works because of the nonchalent tone - but then "The babies are worth less than shit...we burn them" is too blunt and detracts a bit from the speaker's subtle nonchalent attitude. My main criticism is that you lose some of the irony at times when your characters diverge from the detached corporate attitude into more crass or blatent comments. Generally funny though.
Concept: 9 It's a great idea, effectively satirizing both the stupidity of endorsements and the stupidity of celebrityism simultaneously. From Nicole Kidman shares to companies bidding to have their items shoplifted to 4-year-olds being acclimatized to press conferences, you have treated the subject creatively to create a "manufactured" sense to the article, explaining each step in the artificial but effective process. Some parts would work better if they were more subtle. e.g.: "The world economy would collapse within the space of five minutes" - it might be better to less obviously describe the wrangling of industry as it struggles to survive the loss of its most important asset. e.g., "you have to realize these celebrities aren't people they're a commodity like soap or cheese." - make the person imply it more (something like "these celebrities all have personalities, they really do -- just as cheese can be brie or cheddar or mozzarella"). Sometimes your article becomes too obvious and blunt.
Prose and formatting: 5 Formatted correctly. A number of grammatical errors, especially mixing up possessives with plurals. Go through the article carefully to fix errors.
Images: 7 Good pictures with good captions. The scandal chart needs to be bigger to be read (on my computer the print is too small, though this may vary depending on the computer).
Miscellaneous: 7 I'd like to know a bit more about how they become celebrities.
Final Score: 35 Very creative article.
Reviewer: Rogpyvbc 23:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


edit What's this? An Uncyclopedia article that tells the truth?

I never thought I'd see the day. 212.219.7.2 09:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well written, I like it --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent Icons-flag-au Noobaward Wotm Unbooks mousepad GUN 09:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects