From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
edit From Pee Review
Alright, this page nearly got huffed when I first wrote it as an inexperienced Un editor. Now I like it, but I think I might be a bit stuck, so hopefully a decent reviewer can give me some feedback. --THINKER 22:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
|Humour:||6||"2. Think. Not hard enough to hurt yourself..." is funny. But at heart the article seems...coyly confusing? Vaguely deconstructionist? See endnotes.|
|Concept:||8||Excellent subject, good concept.|
|Prose and formatting:||7||Mostly good, but could use some fiddling..."set on fire bowling pins" might be better as "flaming bowling pins", for example.|
|Images:||7||Appropriate images...but see endnotes.|
|Miscellaneous:||7||A good article, could be better however.|
|Reviewer:||----OEJ 18:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)|
Endnotes: On humour: There is always a difficulty with articles that don't define exactly what they're about in the opening paragraphs...that difficulty being, the reader has a nagging sense of unfulfillment. He is uneasy. His stomach rumbles. He hears a noise -- is it someone at the front door? Will this person tell him, finally, what the article is about? But no, the noise is just the electric kettle exploding. And now his cat is dead, its intestines draped like crepe paper streamers over the back of the stove.
Now, you can make articles that intentionally tease the reader -- UnContent is probably my best effort in that direction. This is not an article is another group of writers' shot in the same direction. But I personally think that in order for such a page to be funny the reader has to be able to figure out pretty quickly that the article is intentionally avoiding making sense.
He has to be in on the joke.
Now, I may be misunderstanding that part of Poppycock, but it seems to me that the article does not state what poppycock is right out front, and partway through the article says "Still having trouble figuring out what the hell Poppycock is all about?" so perhaps the confusion is intentional.
If that's the case, my recommendation is to find a way to let the reader in on the joke -- instead of tricking him into confusion, tell him (somehow) that the article is playing around and he can enjoy the ride without worrying that he's confused because he missed something important.
If I'm overanalyzing the piece I apologize. It could merely be that you just need to say what the article is about in the first few lines.
On the images: The only problem is, poppycock as used in the article seems mostly to denote nonsense, though with a completely spurious etymology and some wonderfully satirical examples; while two of the pictures are of the popcorn-like food substitute sold under the name "Poppycock™". What, the literal-minded reader asks, is the connection?
Good article, though. Keep it up. ----OEJ 18:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the in-depth review OEJ!
- As I have found, the literal definition of poppycock is "senseless talk; nonsense." So thats probably why I went off in the winding, figure-it-out-yourself route rather than the explanatory. I know what you mean on this though, and I'll try to work in something that will kinda give a sense of direction rather than a full-on explanation, just to keep a partially nonsensical nature within the piece.
- Images: Yeah, come to think of it I really need to remove the sad young Asian lady. Before her, the white chicks with the Poppycock popcorn stuff fit because it lacked the link between it and the first. Without the first, the lack of grounding in the second pictured females fits the theme of the article (I think... much dependent on the replacement image, I suppose). I'll look into fixing this immediately. Thanks again for these great notes!! --THINKER 18:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Take some time and think about it, maybe. Don't rush too much. I actually like the Asian girl and the caption under it -- it plays off the white-girl caption nicely. It strikes me that guys can "hand a girl a box of poppycock" when they're trying to take advantage of her...might be able to tie that in somehow. Some girls might even like to hear "a bunch of flattering poppycock" in some situations even if they recognize the box it comes in...so to speak. So maybe a few tweaks in the text could make the pictures absolutely relevant. But think it over, revise, fiddle about. This piece is in no danger of the VFD box or anything. Let your creativity work on it for awhile, maybe. Good luck -- ----OEJ 19:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)