From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
edit Pee Review
|Humour:||5||Note 1. “Ernest Pedophile Worrell (June 15, 1889 - February 10, 2000) is/was an overly friendly and dimwitted yokel, who somehow managed to become a popular movie character in a popular movie franchise.” This paragraph anticipates the article’s quick degeneration into a sordid and debauched affair and the article’s proclivity for randomness.
Note 2. "Ernest never quite fit in at school; it may have been because of his appearance or perhaps it was his tendency to be overly annoying. Ernest had an uncontrollable habit of getting too close to an individual and violating their personal space." Elicited no smirk, smile, or chuckle. The reader understands that violating personal spaces is quite offensive but was the reader supposed to glean any humor from that realization or from Ernest having done so?
Note 3. "Ernest frequently got in trouble at school for his antics, and was temporarily placed in a special education program" Be careful when suggesting a person or thing is mentally shaky: if it’s not funny—and this part is not—it comes off crass and juvenile.
Note 4. “he was expelled for cheating on a first-grade spelling test during his sixth-grade French test.” Good use of irony. However, elicited no smirks, smiles, or chuckles.
Note 5. “Fed up with his inability to fit in, Ernest Worrell moved out at age 18 and met a hooker named Roxanne. After Roxanne was busted for prostitution, it was time for Ernest to find a new home. And fast.” Unexpected turn of events. Ernest’s involvement with Roxanne offers a semblance of transition into the proceeding “Career” section. However, the transition (which employs abrupt randomness through Ernest’s chance meeting with a prostitute) is weak. Surprises are all well and good but this part was actually discomforting.
Note 6. The career section was largely an unwelcome and unfunny digression on Vern, not Ernest.
Note 7. “Several more commercials followed, laced with plenty of euphemisms, double entendres, and sexual innuendo. Products ranged from Sprite, The New Coke, McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Crimestoppers, anti-smoking Public Service Announcements, beer, cars, Liquid Plumber, Chia Pets, Good Burger, Barbie products, Enzyte, and sex toys.” Commercial section was forgettable. Half of the section was essentially a list of pop culture refuse.
Note 8. "Because the film was to be rated PG and involve children, Ernest would not be allowed to use his middle name of Pedophile. Instead he would refer to himself as Ernest P. Worrell." The article frequently identifies Ernest as a pedophile—ad nauseum. The point was made explicitly clear in the beginning of the article. Frankly, slandering an individual as a pedophile or any other uninspired incendiary suggests a mind out of ideas.
Note 9. "Ernest Saves Christmas, Ernest Goes to Jail, Ernest Goes to School, and Ernest Gets a Speeding Ticket and Has to Face Judge Judy." Unwelcome abrupt randomness.
Note 10. Movies, Death, and Remake sections were largely forgettable.
Note 11. The article exhibits slipshod execution and movement. The myriad of insipid and unfunny ideas interspersed in a single section detract from the main idea to be discussed in that section and ultimately detract from the point of the article: a humorous biography. For example, the “Death” section: trim away the irrelevant ideas and one is left with "Ernest P. Worrell's actual death occurred on February 10, 2000, when he died of lung cancer." Essentially, the whole of the section was a digression. Length is no substitute for quality.
Note 12. Tone: The article is an exercise in over-indulgent mean-spiritedness and slander.
|Concept:||7||The concept is fine. A biography of beloved bumpkin humorist.|
|Prose and formatting:||7||The prose and formatting were fine.|
|Images:||7||Picture 1. The captioning is good and elicited a smile. However, the picture elicits puzzlement really.
Picture 2. Very funny. He looks so distressed. The fuzziness of the picture actually accentuates his distressed figure.
Picture 3. Elicited ???s.
Picture 4, 5, 6, 7. Elicited no smirks, smiles, or chuckles.
Picture 8. Took me a while to get. But when I did, I thought it was clever. The similarity is uncanny.
|Miscellaneous:||6.5||Averaged. Oh! There should be hyper links in this article.|
|Final Score:||32.5||This article, as of right now, is not ready for VFH. It has the potential, just take your time and try not to depend too much on shock sordid humor. Of course, should the desire be great, may one suggest looking at the Poop Cuisine article: the article discusses poop (something particularly shocking and juvenile) in the most sedate and off-hand way. Essentially, try not to be so flashy using shock humor. Not being flashy also dispels readers' impressions of an author who just enjoys denigrating people. Also, trim out the dead weight in the article; starting again from scratch if one has to. Good luck and Godspeed.|
|Reviewer:||Mightydandylion (talk) Fk 03:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)|