Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Blackface (reworking)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 06:14, April 27, 2011 by Fnoodle (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Blackface

I reworked huge parts of it. It's a bit absurd, I know, but what more can one do about it?

88.195.80.177 21:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


I'll get to this very soon! SK Sir Orian57Talk Gay flag RotM 18:39 14 August 2008

Ok I'm really soory I forgot about teh review and I'm even sorrier now that I have little time to do it in. SK Sir Orian57Talk Gay flag RotM 10:20 4 September 2008
UUtea A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article
is being reviewed by:
UU - natter UU Manhole
(While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead).
(Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole).

I'm a little suspicious about this one - the review request saying it has been reworked was raised in August - the only edits since April have been Fnoodle spellchecking and MrN adding a link. I'll whistle through with a quick review just in case, but I don't think this is that genuine. If it is genuine, give me a shout on my talk page and we can discuss it further. --UU - natter UU Manhole 13:13, Oct 28

Humour: 3 OK, this is an odd one, because on first glance, it looks well laid out, and like quite a decent article. I was expecting a bit more than I got, I have to say, because when you actually get down to read this, it's a curious mix of coherence and random. Many of the ideas in this are quite random, and unexplained - for instance, the last line of the intro - "...and by Africans to declare war on Europe". This is not explained either beforehand or afterwards, we don't find out how this works, we don't have any frame of reference for it, and so it's completely random. The final paragraph of the next section is similarly inexplicable - Men in Blackface? Eh? And what does that bit about the insult mean?

The "common usage" section makes pretty much no sense, and much of the final section had my eyes crossing as I tried to follow it.

But that said, I kept looking for ideas and coherence, as it seems to be written a cut above most of the random articles I encounter, and I wanted there to be an idea. And lo, I found two! I quite like the first paragraph of the "etymology" section. Wit-donkey tickles me, somehow. And in the second paragraph, the term is aligned with other colour/body part combinations, which also amused me, and seemed to be an idea to get some mileage from. The problem is getting sense out of this, which I'll cover in the "concept" section.

Concept: 3 There really isn't one. Not a coherent central one, anyway. There are a lot of random concepts. The thing about this is, you can lose some good ideas by not explaining them properly. If there are any other good ideas in here, then you need to explain them properly, as I'm lost.

The ideas I saw that had potential - the etymology section, mainly - need to be worked with. You can have fun explaining how the term came into being, gained widespread acceptance, and was then corrupted into a different meaning. So the term originates as a way of distinguishing the human workers from the actual donkeys or something.

And the whole article meeds to make sense when read back - not as a set of unrelated ideas and oddities, but as a coherent whole. Trim out the bits that don't work, and see what you can do with what's left.

Prose and formatting: 7 Formatting is fine, and the prose isn't too bad either, which is why I'm convinced there's more to come from this.
Images: 6 About the right number for the article, all appropriate to the subject, but badly captioned and not really connected to the article - they aren't illustrating points raised in the text, and the captions don't make them either relevant or funny. Think about how to integrate them with the article.
Miscellaneous: 3 This is too miscellaneous, that's it's problem.
Final Score: 22 I'm confused. I wanted to find something to really like in here, because it looked like I should. But I didn't, really. Take the ideas you have, and work on explaining them properly, get as much comedy as possible from your best ideas, ditch anything you can't make fit with the rest, keep it consistent with itself, and generally try to make it less random and freeform. A read of HTBFANJS generally helps - I know it helps many of our best authors (and me).

Finally, remember this is only my opinion, others are available, and good luck!

Reviewer: --UU - natter UU Manhole 13:42, Oct 28
Personal tools
projects