Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Alexandr Lukaschenko

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Alexandr Lukaschenko

  • I need some feedback -GermanPug (talk) 13:21, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
Humour: 3 Some of the humor approaches do not succeed. The short introduction is mostly name-calling. It is not funny just to declare that Lukaschenko is "an idiot"--you must describe idiotic things, leading the reader to that conclusion; you'd get style points for irony, such as praising his acts in a way that leads the reader to conclude that he's an idiot. Separately, all of the numbers in the article, including the birth date in the intro, are what we call "nonsense numbers." Stating a number that cannot be true is trite (see UN:HTBFANJS) and detracts from the superficial impression that this is an encyclopedia. Also, "Little is known" is never funny and likewise detracts from the encyclopedia format.
Concept: 5 No inherent problem with the concept. Americans know little about Belarus or its personalities--I know his name but nothing more--but you are uniquely situated to give him the treatment he deserves. However, the theme of this page--"The man is a butcher," including the blood-stained illustrations, lays it on too thick. If he were literally a butcher, it wouldn't be funny; if you wrote this page because of a political agenda, it won't be as funny as it could be, if you are trying to convince people to come to your side.
Prose and formatting: 3 Your English needs improvement. In Section 1, the sentence that begins "After" makes the entire first clause look like a modifier of something that would follow. It needs to start: "Afterward,". The phrase "failed to Putin" fails because "fail to" is an idiom that is followed by a verb; write "lost to Putin."
Images: 5 The first photo is entertaining but the blood is unsubtle. The second photo, and its caption, are totally unsubtle. If the article were expanded to full size (see below), it would need more photos.
Miscellaneous: 3 The article is way too short. A stock solution is to read his article in Wikipedia and add sections that are parodies of the sections of that article.
Final Score: 19 The article left me believing it was a "hatchet job"--a quick-and-dirty character assassination of a figure with whom the author disagrees. Was I supposed to laugh, or to clench my fists?
Reviewer: Spıke Ѧ 15:52 2-Jun-12
Personal tools