Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Awesome land
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Hey guys, first aticle I've ever written. It's not totally finished yet but I'd like some input.
The Truth of Matheus 00:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
|Humour:||4||Wow, is this ever a first article. Evolution of an Uncyclopedia editor ought to link directly to this.
The good news is that I think it shows promise. It's got comprehensible sentences. It shows an awareness of a broad range of subjects. It hints at a lurking ability for wicked satire.
But it has massive problems. A lot of new Uncyclopedians arrive at the site, and they read maybe twenty or thirty articles, and they think "Okay, I think I've got a handle on this place. Uncyclopedians think the following things are funny: Oscar Wilde, Chuck Norris, Xenu, Scooby Doo, Steve Ballmer, homosexuality, and AAAAAA! I'm going to write an article that references all of them, and they'll see just how brilliantly I fit in." I know. I was one of them. My first article featured Steve Ballmer fucking killing people and Chuck Norris delivering roundhouse kicks to the head.
The reality is that Uncyclopedians are sick to death of these memes. We could go the rest of our lives without ever seeing them again.
Also, keep this in mind: there is no limit on how many articles you can write. So an article doesn't have to contain Ron Paul, the FSM, Pastafarians, Chuck Norris, the Fonz, Yoda, the Atari 2600, Star Wars, man/boy love, hummers, Hitler, Russian Reversals, and weed. In fact, you could write thirteen articles, each one about one of those subjects, and each article would be better than the one crowded, claustrophobic, incomprehensible article.
A good article satirizes something. When you drop dozens of memes into a single article, it's satirizing nothing except Uncyclopedia itself. And there are a veritable pantsload of articles that satirize Unyclopedia itself; most of us are perfectly content not to read any more.
|Concept:||2||The concept is the central problem of this article. It's called "Awesome land." So, the reader thinks, it's going to be about a land that's awesome, right? It's going to be a humorous take on what a country would be like if everything was fucking awesome, all the time. The workday is 20 minutes long? Beer comes out of the tap? The city employs women who go door-to-door showing you their breasts?
But instead, we find that in Awesome land, a fictional deity created by atheists to demonstrate the silliness of the concept of God brought three sentient beings into existence, and they died. And we think... um... is that awesome? That doesn't seem that awesome. That just seems kind of random.
Then we find that Winston Churchill united Awesome land in 404 B.C. Well, that's odd - Winston Churchill didn't live in 404 B.C. Is there a reason that it's funny that Winston Churchill lived in 404 B.C.? Does "404" have something to do with the "File Not Found" error? Is there a joke in here that Winston Churchill couldn't find a file? Would it be "awesome" if Winston Churchill lived in 404 B.C.? I don't laugh at this. I just tilt my head like a dog being shown a schematic of a hydraulic press.
And then we get... man/boy love and the Holocaust. Now, no Uncyclopedian really wants to read anything about man/boy love, ever again, because we've already learned that Ronald McDonald is a pedophile, Barney is a pedophile, Oscar Wilde is a pedophile, and that there is nothing comedic about Michael Jackson beyond his pedophilia. And, a Holocaust? I don't know, if I was living in Awesome land, would I expect a Holocaust? I don't think I would. Maybe that would work if the concept was specifically that Awesome land is a horrible misnomer... but that's not the concept here. There's a Holocaust here for absolutely no reason.
|Prose and formatting:||6|
But the formatting is atrocious. I don't know what kind of resolution your computer is set to, but take a look at how it looks on my monitor. There's an infobox in the middle of the page, before the article. The contents are awkwardly balanced between misshapen pictures on the left and the right. The lede begins at a seemingly random place in the article. It doesn't get much uglier than this.
|Images:||3||Many, many random pictures are also a sign of an early effort at an Uncyclopedia article. Instead of pasting in images that seem funny, consider looking for images that have something to do with the concept of the article. The only image that has any reason to be here at all is the "Flag of Awesome land", and we don't need to see it twice. Combining three flags into one is only slightly funny; it's a throwaway joke.|
|Final Score:||18.75||Welcome to Uncyclopedia! I'm sorry for the really critical review, but it's a rite of passage around here. I got one too: after writing something I thought was perfect for the site, I was informed that it was only slightly better than the stuff that gets deleted every day. My best advice would be this: try writing a HowTo or Why? article. Give some absurd instructions, or answer a question in a ridiculous way. And leave Chuck Norris to articles about Chuck Norris. Good luck!
Oh, and one more obligatory thing: the powers-that-be at PEE have instructed me to point you to Uncyclopedia:How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid and Uncyclopedia:Best of. Maybe you'll find them helpful.
|Reviewer:||Hyperbole 01:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)|