Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Anti-intellectualism

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Anti-intellectualism

I feel this is my first proper article-my first one on an actual subject, anyway. I don't feel it's in any way very good, but it's a start, so be as strict as is called for.

Also, if you're not familiar with anti-intellectualism, I'd appreciate it if you could just briefly glance over the Wikipedia article on it (linked from my page) just to get an idea of it and help you get the jokes a bit better.

BlueYonder 21:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Sycamore is reviewing your article--— Sir Sycamore (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
A Free Coupon
For a bumming session with Noel Fielding
Humour: 6 Pretty alright-as an overview what I would say here is that although you are intertextualised to add to the parody, some of these don't work-similarly the fusion across such a wide spectrum has hampered the effort.
  • Intro: Various variants "anti educationist' etc immediate set a bad tone; I think a more coherent strand could be set here-similarly an immediate rant tone is set, not such a good idea. Ideally you're into should set the article up, the old essay credo=Say it=fill out=say it again should be the guide here. The image again a bad move, HowTo: Become Stupid in 21 days-repetition of images is always a bad move. Probably find something else. The grammar her is not so great "the spilling of someone’s glass of water" or "History-though, as of yet". This is fairly minor, but still I would say this section could be tightened up.
  • 1st Section:Probably an attempt to do too much here, again it does not really add to much o the manifesto energy here and the principles get a little lost amidst the attempt at impotence jokes-it could be an idea to merge this more fully with the rest of the article; you could for example have a lot more of the subsequent sections like the future moved here or further addition to the this one to more fully establish the concept> I think he section is a little soft, similarly I think too much of a "Point" is being made amongst parody-there’s a very fine line which is easily crossed. There’s a lot of Politics here; this is a bit of an easy joke, similarly blatant political analogies are always a moot point for me-if you must, probably make it a bit more subtle, this will strengthen the message anyway.
  • 2nd section:Monty python pic a little grey for me, similarly telling a joke tough someone else’s is a little difficult, you're also dependent on people having seen the holy grail. Again there is explicit Political referencing, not so cool; remember the argument here is extremely left wing and sides not take account of the conditions nor that actual public opinion-without going too in-depth here-there’s a little too much of the cuff political option here-it would be far more advisable to satire everybody including the commoners. A red link, there’s no need for that to be here as it in no way helps to flag non existent articles like Wikipedia.
  • 3rd Section:Here you bring in Milton, very high brow; but I don't think you've really brought him in well-similarly religious allusions. Again how far you're getting at the Puritans is a little difficult to say-A well known gibe I know of is Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night, the Character is a Puritan and is the butt of jokes. Overall there is not a lot going on here; and also the Bible quote looks a little weak-specifically I think that the concepts you're binging in are very complex on so many levels and you deal with them in a very off the cusp leftist atheist fashion. This simply isn't really the best way to go about things. Use of brackets should not be there before bible quote. The quote is written very Monty python-however I would say that without Michael Palin reading it seems a little insincere and overall not all that funny-its also long and (in my view) has little actual content, other than that god hate intelligence.
  • 4th section:Ahh Russian Reversal noooooo. An interesting but too off the cusp-this is something fairly complex and this lacks focus to really be funny. This section is too tacked on-your main scope of parody can be summed up with a quote from Fred:

Madness in individuals is rare, however in groups, sects and governments it is a rule

~ Nietzsche

Great point-but within your article you cover too wide a scope in a very short and unfulfilling way-I suggest you tighten the field of parody and focus more on Anti Intellectualism. Here with the communism is too much of an offshoot that does not really fit in.

  • 5th section:An interesting take-probably a little too narrow a take on the political stance of postwar Europe and America-you also failed to mention vast class changes or female rights-and the cycle of Anti Intellectualism with currant culture. At this stage I also thin there could have been more critic me f Intellectualism itself-intellectualism is academia which does not necessarily imply intelligence or reason. With the sixties section there are no glaring grammatical errors I can see here, the content seems a little irrelevant and again another offshoot that’s delt with a little offhand. For example the Vietnam War or Bob Dylan is ignored here-these parodies issuies/indavidulas could be explored.
  • 6th section:fairly grey here-dissing the christen Right is very De Rigueur on this site at the moment; Personally I think this is a little bit of lame duck and it makes out that the liberals have got a clue (Not that I’m Christian Right). For me his is a little bit a of a weak crack and again to politically charged for a satirical Wiki-it just seems a little too far in the wrong direction to me. Again the way you split off to a mock consevapedia quote is good-however I would say that dissing other peoples Wikis is a no go in my opinion, it give a bad impression of the site as a whole, encourages trolling from outraged readers and general poor impression of our site-its meant to be in good fun. The way you have written this comes across in a fairly contemptuous way; its fine to disagree with people what I would say is that it should stay parody and there just isn't any playful nonsense here, or any well meaning good fun. An example that is quite good is Ned Flanders in the Simpson-the show hardly conforms to Ned reality by generally keeps a positive light on everybody whatever their defects. Similarly the rise in teenage issues is difficult sphere and is dealt with in the same off the hand contempt-I would generalize more over these as it simply isn’t all that funny.
  • Conclusion:Good-I think that you focus on Americans here. I like the star wars references and I have little complaints about your conclusion-Its fine to be this negative, it’s got a good tone and leaves behind the overt left wing tutorial that previous sections had
Concept: 7 Again good stuff-I think the concept has the critical problem in the seer wideness of its application-what could help would be to be the focus throughout as it has (in my option) become pretty diffuse. For example in Battleship Potemkin, the ship itself is the focus whilst around it I weaved write a few different concepts. Similarly the Political discussion is too overt to be funny-and closes in on individuals too harshly
Prose and formatting: 6 Alright, some typos grammatical errors. Mainly I would say the paragraphs are little big and clunky-these could be broken out a little. You could have a 'see also' section at the end. The images are align left when usually it is best to align right, and I would advise align g them right. Overall the main flaw is often bitty sections that deal in too offhand a fashion a varity of concepts, ideologies and history.
Images: 5 As I mentioned duplication, Monty Python not great. The final two are fine and I have no gripes there
Miscellaneous: 6 A pretty decent article. Would tone down the political points and tighten it all together better.
Final Score: 30 Well done for your first article, my first efforts were not as good as this;) keep it up!
Reviewer: --— Sir Sycamore (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal tools