Talk:The 9/11 Commission Report
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
|Humour:||5.5||So the biggest thing I can say about humour is that it just has too much silliness in it, so that any argument you make aren't relevant to any points regarding what actually happened or what conspiracy theory guys think. For example, this line "The pilot's prowess was most impressive: he single-handedly maneuvered the Boeing in order to dodge all electrical lines and poles while tying his shoes, eating some greasy chips that made the commands slippery and shaping a dog with a balloon to give romantically to one of his 74 virgins." There are so many unnecessary jokes in here that it ruins the sarcasm you are trying to use here. I understand you are trying to show how unusual it is that the pilot was able to get through electrical lines (although the pentagon has everything like that underground?), but there is too much randomness in here that detracts from the article and makes it look just plain silly. I would suggest you change a majority of the article to be much more relevant to what people think happened. For example the section about World Trade Center 7, "The sun was pretty hot on that day. It melted the core. When this 47-story building was constructed out of rocks and mud, back in the Middle Ages, the Sun did not exist, therefore the architects are not at fault. Also, there were gusts of wind. What did you expect?" I mean, I get the sarcasm you are using here, but it feels more like some personal comments rather than what I would expect from a report, even if it's an uncyclopedia report. Maybe something like, "|
|Concept:||6||So, in general, your concept is a little tough to get into VFH, principally because its still a sensitive issue, especially since its september and the 10 year anniversary and lad-de-da. At the same time, you're bound to have some people who claim they don't find your article funny when they haven't even read it or simply don't like the political messages behind it. It does seem like this happened to some degree in your article's vote. However, I would like to agree with TKF on his point that your article doesn't deliver enough of a punch. Your article kind of has premature feeling to it, like its a rough draft right now and needs more work. Make the format cleaner, the humour less ridiculous and more relevant, etc. Principally, I don't want you to give up on this one, you just need to work on it a bit more, maybe get another pee review after that, and it should make it. Seriously though, these people have voted for much worse articles, it makes me wonder when they say no to particular ones...|
|Prose and formatting:||6.5||So I noticed some grammar errors here and there, as well as some spelling issues. Just re-read the article and pick those out and that's all you need to do.
Regarding format, I believe your biggest issue to be the fact that the first half of your article has the pictures bunched up, while the bottom half doesn't have anything at all. However, your pictures are placed well within their sections, so it's not like you can move them. My best suggestion would be to switch around some sections, like the world trade center 7 section with that about the pentagon and then move the picture with it. That should save some space and make the article look a lot cleaner.
That's about it here, everything else seems fine.
|Images:||7||The images you have so far are good. As I say in format, you just need to move them around a bit, maybe down a bit, put one or two on the left, one on the right, things like that. Make it a little more cleaner. Aside from that, let's talk about the captions. Your captions are on the right track, they definitely have good jokes behind them...however, there's something about them that isn't good. I can't put my finger on it, but I think it's the wording? I feel like you have good jokes, but they aren't...I don't know how to say it. The humour isn't optimized I guess. I'm saying they could be funnier, but they need to be re-worded. Do you get what I'm saying? I hope so.
I also would consider putting some pictures for those last two sections, but this is entirely optional, since I already told you clean up the pictures too. If you can put some in though, maybe small ones on separate sides?...I have some ideas. One, would be to have a picture of the pentagon with the hole and a comment like, "They warned those meth-heads what would happen if they put the meth-lab close to electric room..." or something like that. For the hole one, maybe something like, "Farmer John is not going to be happy about this one..." Or something, I don't know. I'll let you figure this stuff out.
|Miscellaneous:||7.5||So I noticed one key issue you're missing that would turn this article into an automatic VFH, which is simply-Hey! I just noticed my scores are going up by .5 points each time. Hahahaha, what a strange thing...What was I talking about again?|
|Final Score:||32.5||So that's about it Mattsnoo? Matsno?...Mattsnow! Ohhh right. Anyways, don't worry about asking any questions or comments on my talkpage, the FBI will probably be knocking on your door in about 5 minutes with questions of their own and maybe some searches of your premises...Enjoy the free colonoscopy!|
|Reviewer:||--Sir Oliphaunte (განხილვა) 17:27, September 28, 2011 (UTC)|
edit The caller disagrees
edit A wholesomely biased take on the contents of this article by a marginally sane observer
It seems rather obvious what bias this article leans towards to, though stating this would be rather foolish seeing as that was the intent of this piece: a rant, self-serving rant at that. Using the tools of satire and sarcasm, the obviously enlightened individual who has created this article seeks to do what? To address concerns over the issues of the 9/11 "inside job"? Probably not. What this little article manages to do is to bring out a hearty laugh by those who side with it's bias, and bring hate and scorn by those who don't. This is what some would call "clapter", a political statement made to be agreed upon rather than genuinely enticing a laugh or two. This would be at the very least marginally acceptable if it wasn't meant to be humorous, but as a statement with comedy as the dressing. Yet this sad piece manages to be so unashamedly unsubtle about its concept and so ignorant about it that it manages to only bring derision by any sane or educated person. Also, notice the links to "what happened" and "what didn't happen" on the first section. It's not even hiding it.
For example, reread this lovely sentence: "The buildings were not brought down by explosives, which would happen to explain why the structures fell at the rate of gravity and why they were blown to dust." Clever use of irony, mate. Does the person who wrote this article genuinely believe that because the structures fell at the rate of gravity, the buildings weren't taken down by planes? Do planes have antigravity matter inside them that causes matter to float to Mars during collisions? This could be easily explained as author oversight if not for the fact that these moronic and childish "proofs" for this insipid conspiracy theory are found everywhere in this piece. One search could refute every single point brought up by the author, but what good would that do? It's much easier to reaffirm our uneducated beliefs, regardless of whether these beliefs are sane or not.
In some ways, it seems comforting to view the American government as an evil, world-manipulating presence that is the answer to all the world's ill, and YOU as the paragon of saneness and morality in a world of petit-bourgeoisie sheep people, with YOU as the enlightened one surrounded by countless idiots. "Of course the victim's families took government bribe money, everyone else is a greedy pawn of the vast government machine!" Everyone else except YOU. You special snowflake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
I'm left wing. Not that it'll come as a surprise to anyone, but a pseudo-political article will bring up political sentiment. I'm also not American. Declarations done.
The 11/9 incident (I use European dating system myself) is a huge emotive issue. The number of deaths in the destruction of the towers was astronomical, and the number of deaths justified by the destruction of those towers an astronomical figure as well.
This is definitely going to be emotive, then, whenever anyone writes a article about an issue like this. Does this suggest we shouldn't write articles with a left/right bias. Well, no, we're a parody site, and we have no NPOV restrictions. Anything that is significant and part of a greater community consciousness is, and should be, ripe grounds for parody.
Or to put it another way, we can criticise Obama and George W equally. Same as we can criticise Nixon and Kennedy. Hey, when the shuttle exploded and killed 7 astronauts we were making jokes before the wreckage hit the water.
Having said that, a direct parody on the victims would be poor taste. Parodying the "innocent" dead is fairly tactless. Parodying the response to the incident is fine, and parodying the conspiracy theories is fine as well.
The one issue I have with the concept, on these grounds, is the section talking about the actions of the passengers on the plane. That may be the most poor taste element in the article.
As for the rest - dark humour and poor taste humour are different things. Michael Moore uses dark humour in his movies. He steers away from poor taste. True, he's also politically motivated, but I'm focusing on the humour here.
As for the bulk of the concept - I've made a few comments on Al's talkpage about this already, but I see a lot of parallels between the 11/9 issue and the death of Kennedy.
The initial report was rushed and then used as a political tool. Any observation that contradicted it was labelled as conspiracy nut. 15 years or so later a second report was filed, showing officially that there were major issues with the first report. 30 years later a movie was made bringing it all into the mainstream consciousness. 45 years later the majority of Americans believe that there was at least two gunmen involved in the death.
We're just past the 10 year mark from 11/9 now. As more information becomes uncovered and available, the more that the official story appears to have issues. Given that some of these issues are as big as the plot holes in Independence Day, it's up to us to drive the truck through them.
|Concept:||7||So, now that I've said all that, into the humour. As it stands the article is funny, but not funny enough. One thing to be very careful of is using silly in the place of funny.
The reason why I say this is that a clever concept generally requires clever humour.
Where this falls down is in places it becomes too silly. Using Michael Moore or Stephen Colbert as examples - they use silly very sparingly. Saturday night live uses silly almost exclusively. So when you read a section think along the lines of What would Colbert do?
|Prose and formatting:||8||A little clean up and proof read might be in order. I didn't pick up any major issues, but I am lazy.
I'd remove the TOC (|
__NOTOC__) as that does damage the joke toward the end. Creating a false TOC in it's place is not too hard, if you want to go down that track.
There is something about the overall look relating to the format that bugs me. I can't quite put my finger on it yet. Maybe playing with the header/subheader somewhat would improve it.
|Images:||7.5||Image 1 encapsulates a lot of your article. This may be too much too soon though, and work better toward the base of it.
Smoke cloud: it might be just me browsing via mobile phone, but given what it's highlighting the image may be too small
WTC7: no problem.
You need another image. Maybe an image of the report cover without the grade at the start, and with it at the end?
|Miscellaneous:||8||Major change: I've gone through this as it is at the moment. One thing I've noticed is that it has argument/counter argument style. Would it work better as an UnDebate?|
|Reviewer:||Pup • Talkies • 09:55 20 Mar|