Bertiebeek 09:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Will publish a review tomorrow (I did like, half of it at school today. God I'm such a riot). --Nachlader 21:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
|Humour:||5||Most football articles, I find, on Uncyclopedia are generally unfunny, rife with rivalry animosity, randomness and boast the wit of a three year-old. However, this article struggles towards getting ahead of this (unfair) generalisation of mine, and therfore settles for a 5 in humour. Most football articles I read aren't funny at all, but this article does have some good moments.
The introduction does not bode well. It garnered very little interest from me to actually read the rest of the article. The "Becoming Manager" section is rich with content and has some funnies, but some hint of randomness in parts. The "Trivia" section is just appalling. Everything about Disney is useless. This article should be more of a poke at Grant's sudden rise to the top Chelsea job. It doesn't need anything else, you could easily amplify on the sudden rise instead.
|Concept:||6||Interesting concept, although it falls short of what I think it should be able to achieve, and at times, the article betrays the concept anyway. Judging by the reaction (suprise!) of most people in the football industry to the selection of Avram Grant as Chelsea coach, this article is very much on the right lines to conceive Grant as someone who used to have odd-jobs around Stamford Bridge. However, the concept is mercilessly destroyed by the utter crass random lines you've added.
I would suggest you stick to the concept without trying to add any extras. If you think an article can be better but you don't know how, please do not resort to adding random crap. It's not funny, doesn't contribute to anything, and levels whole concepts from the lofty heights of genius.
|Prose and formatting:||3||Poor. The puncuation and grammar is not very professional. I can't speak French, but I know some French texts that has better grammar in English than this article does. However, they are some minor mistakes that can be easily rectified with a rewrite, for example, instead of "Disneyesque" should be replaced with "Disney-esque". Full stops are missed out, as well as apostraphes. There are some random instances of words with a capital letter ("Toad" that should be taken out). Also, there several typos, "Isreali", "muli million", "immediatley 'disapeared'" are a few culprits.|
|Images:||6||Two images, maybe not enough, but acceptable, for an article of this length. The first image contains photoshopping that I believe is unnecessary. Why do you need to make an ugly person more ugly? Even so, the all the photoshopping did was distort his face a bit. I don't see the point in that, and it doesn't make me attracted to the article The second image is well thought of. Especially considering it shows 'proof' that Grant really did have such lowly positions at Chelsea FC. The broom doesn't look too alien to the original photo and could almost pass off as a real picture. I'd suggest maybe seeing if you add another image (doesn't have to be 'shopped, remember) for a caption opportunity, and replace the first image.|
|Final Score:||24||I love football, and I love football humour. But if I want to see jokes like "Man City? More like Man Shitty! LOL", I'd refer to my fellow Portsmouth fans and diss on the Southampton livestock. You were doing so well with the concept, but you executed it, LITERALLY executed the promising humour, and replaced it with random anti-thisfootballclubfc of which only a very small amount of people will think is funny seen from an article on Uncyclopedia.
I would suggest you cut down the randomness scale of the text, get rid of the Disney-related stuff and delete the trivia section. Sort out the puncuation, grammer and spelling. Replace the first image with something else that hasn't be mutilated by useless distortion (with something like this maybe?). Concentrate on his career, from going to a groundskeeper at some club in Israel, to a freak job selection at Chelsea. It's hard to make any football article great, but at least ths article could be better.
|Reviewer:||--Nachlader 10:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)|