Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/24 (television show)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 23:28, October 8, 2011 by Frosty (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit 24

Rewrote a lot of the stuff on this piece, and now I'm proud of it. Are you? Scofield & 1337 15:44, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Ok. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 03:06, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
Ehhh I might be a while with this (gimme 72 hours) I've kinda run into a blank here :/ ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 03:17, October 8, 2011 (UTC)
Humour: 6 Maybe its just a personal thing, but the whole real time script thing is not the best substitute for proper satire and mis-information. But as I said maybe that's just me, and others would like it. The prose as a whole needs some work and here I'll try and explain why.

Introduction - I'd like to take this part to say your introduction needs to be to started all over again. Here is why, instead of jumping straight into a live script format. Set the scene with more that 1 and a half lines, tell the reader what the hell is going on. Even tell them "This is a script showing a live feed of 24..." etc. Don't just settle for where its set and when. Introduce the cast, provide some background on the actual show and provide a few (but not a heap) of references to the script. Don't provide too many spoilers ok? I'd completely get rid of the script and commentary at this point and save it for after the introduction.

Also the content of the next section would serve as a good introduction, given some slight prettying up. I'd recommend you move it up and re-write it as an introduction, it could work rather well.

Wikipedia's "Original" 24 article - Right, as I said about the character profile part, humor it up and move it to your introduction to work well. The tiny bit of script in the introduction, given some slight change could also serve you well in this section. As the title suggests, include more of the wikipedia article up the top, of course the bits are dramatically humorous. But do of course keep it to just the right amount without over doing it and it engulfing the section and your whole article.

The Cracked Encyclopedia: Fox's "big" Project 24! - Alright the first bit of this section is good, I look how it parodies the previous section and the script is well done for this part at least. It's pleasing that you have done some things right, but as I suggested some changes in he previous section, this one needs to follow suit, but in its own separate style of course. Otherwise the joke is lost.

Obligatory Randumbo - I dunno about this idea at all, two should be enough. I'm close to saying chop this bit out and expand the script and info on the others, but if you do decide to keep it, keep it in line with the others to maintain the joke.

So try and work on it a bit, get rid of the unbelievable obvious random bits and replace it with ironic, funny, yet remotely true content. That stuff is the funniest.

Concept: 6 The idea of writing such a type of article in script format is a strange one to me, the concept in itself putting aside the fact i didn't like the style is reasonably well done. For a style as bizarre as this its good in comparison to others. But as I continually pointed out in the humor section of my review, bits and pieces look like they are in the wrong order and structure needs work. Along with a better balance of the types of prose you put in (more script and a little bit more, although not as much paragraphs).

Balance and order is critical otherwise it looks clumsy, I'd be sad of this, because I do feel potential.

Prose and formatting: 7 For a script, its reasonably well done (given a few issues that I'll address later). But I'm not sure as an informative article 9so the namespace says) is best suited to a script format. It looks more of an UnScript to me given a few paragraphs to help out, but using it as UnScript shouldn't be too much of an issue, I'd consider moving it even if you decide against it or already have.

As for the prose itself, it alright but needs some work. You have bolded and italiced important bits and pieces which I like to see. But not enough bluelinks and too many redlinks could you work on this please? I know certain people disapprove of red.

Images: 7.5 I'll keep it short here. I like the images you used later on in the article and the captions and format. But please try and add at least one to the early part of the article for the sake of balancing the article out.
Miscellaneous: 7 Overall rating out of 10.
Final Score: 33.5 Thats it really. The script format is a bit bizarre, but I suppose you can work on it a little, try and reorder everything and polish up the formatting and add an extra image. That's basically the nutshell of my review. I'll read the final product, I'm like that.
Reviewer: ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au
Personal tools
projects