Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Angry British guy
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
My first article, sucks badly, so i'd like some criticism, and a lesson on Britspeak. Saberwolf116 23:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Nachlader will review this article.
- Hello, old chap, terrific day is it not, it is indeed splendid. Hmm, yes, hmm. Rather. What ho! These fags ain't half pukka! Scramble! Chocks away! Let's 'avva cuppa tea, love. 'Ello, 'ello, 'ello, what's all this then? Right! You're nicked! It's fair cop! Alright, mate? Listen 'ere, I wouldn't give any more than a fiver for it mate. Alright, alright, a tenner. I'm killing meself! A tenner! You made the right decision, mate. Good luck t'yer. Spiffing! --
23:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just to remind myself that the link has moved: Angry British Guy -- 19:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
|Humour:||2||Ah. Hm. Yes. An article of many a mistake, misgiving, crude decisions and hindrance. The article features a perhaps random attack on the Americans by a particularly mad Englishman (here's the first problem: try not to generalise cultures, people from Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland don't really use some of the words in this article. Especially Queen. The best name for this article? Angry English Guy).
The article is inwardly stereotypical. No, this isn't a pro-English rant, I mean that the author (you) are most certainly unsure of what a rather spiffing stereotype of an Englishman is. Add to that, I'm in the doldrums whether you've even seen a picture of an Englishman. This article does not land humour in any way, 'fraid to say.
As the concept section will dutifully point out, this article needs to rework it's spine before it can start thinking about humour. Of course, articles can be awesome without a particularly strong concept, but this certainly isn't the case.
|Concept:||2||Upon blunt inspection and knowledge, I'd say the concept may have been wholly inspired by the recent feature Drill sergeant, no? Fair enough, considering it's a very effective article that you're wheeling away from here. However, my immediate concern is that the concept rests so well with Drill sergeant, it's almost certainly exclusive; the use of caps and endless torrent of abuse towards the reader, it was barely acceptable as feature material to some of the users who voted for anyway. So the thought of yet another article taking on the same idea is not thought much of, I can safely say.
sually when I give a score of 3 or lower, it means that I can do nought but struggle to think of a reason why it should carry on existing. I believe that all users at Uncyclopedia should be able to write about a general topic that has a hope that a minority of people can understand, so I'll rack my brains: take an entirely different course with this article. I like to think I can write about a convincingly American sounding character. I credit this to years of watching, listening and reading American media. And that is a lot, considering I've still managed to let my life be ruled by some of the more home grown culture we English have. I have the idea that if I really tried, I could actually pass off as American. My acting skills are sort of up to scratch, let alone my accent. And what do I thank for this? I repeat, years of studying American culture.
I highly, highly doubt that the US of A gets the same infusion of British culture as we get American stuff. Luckily, quite a few of Americans on Uncyclopedia find the late 1800s, early 1900s gentlemanly character quite the party-rousing fellow for a laugh or three. However, I can guarantee you, any other British character is likely to be lost on them. And Americans make up a good percentage of this site. This article would immediately be lost on them, even if it was written by an American.
I clearly understand that a few years is a bit out of your researching time, but no matter. Unless you can think of a way to duly sharpen your knowledge on the subject, there will be little motivation from users, such as myself, to see any more of this article.
|Prose and formatting:||2||Swish. I have to be honest, none of the phrases you use in this article are... well... British. Words, yes. But then that's like me doing an impression of an American, running along the usage of your vocabulary: "I betcha y'all off eatin' donuts an' watchin' football, you all gosh-durned slackers!". See what I mean? It's almost embarrassing. Usually, I would take the time to make a list of the lines that hit me the most, but in this case, I may as well say that the whole thing is incredibly awkward. It's like a cheesy British phrase book went off in the fridge.
However, I will take care to point a few words that are most certainly not primarily English by coinage: "dick", "dumbass", "mommy" (at least use UK English spelling? It is being written down after all), "awesome", "niggers" and "MTV" (nobody here watches MTV, so we don't bother to even insult it). There are also sentences that are neither English, nor American by birth. The structure is perhaps, very American, but absolutely not English in any way.
Furthermore, this is a CAPS LOCK ONLY ARTICLE. IF I DID THIS REVIEW IN CAPS LOCK ONLY, IT'D BE PRETTY DAMN ANNOYING FOR SOME PEOPLE TO READ, IF NOT ALL. SEE WHAT I MEAN? It's regarded as a shouting article. I tolerated reading articles in caps only it for a while, but now it just resembles a language that is dead to me. I just lose interest.
|Images:||2||One image. The picture is an eight-year old Charlton Athletic FC fan at the Valley in 2002, the game was against Crystal Palace FC, Charlton's local London rivals, hence the expression given by the child. That's how old the picture is. I even know the full details of it. That's not something that happens all the time when one views an image on Uncyclopedia. To add salt to wounds, it's not really funny. It's also a kid, which contradicts the title of the article.
Even at this length, the article would deserve two images. I can't really think of a fitting image, so let's move on.
|Miscellaneous:||2||Average'd. Thank god this section exists, huh?|
|Final Score:||10||I'm going to be honest; this article is little too much on the side of what you Americans refer to as "the trash" (seriously, why the "the" afore it? Rubbish isn't important, just go recycle the damn thing). Instead of trying to focus any more time on this, I suggest you take a full step back: review your own preparation for writing an article, and then move two steps forward with the right engineering in mind and a fresh idea. I'd say the biggest problem that you should bother about is your research. Sometimes an article can be easily featured without an ounce of research on the author's behalf, but then there are the lucky breaks like that everywhere in life. Take the honest, surest and safest path - and research the topic before you hit the edit button. Good luck and there are definitely other opinions available.|
|Reviewer:||--21:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)|