Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Boston Bruins

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Boston Bruins

NHLersAllGo 02:24, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Humour: 3 This is a collection of the exact kind of unfunny random "humor" that HTBFANJS specifically warns against. Have you read that page yet? Please understand that it is the culture here to eliminate this kind of thing as much as we can. If you stick around this place, and I hope you will (the NHL articles need some work; I am a huge Hockey fan, I wrote the Anaheim Ducks article), that while some of these things were funny to you when you wrote them, you will grow to understand that it wears very old and thin very quickly, and there are no real laughs. Here are some prime examples of this random humor from your article:
  • They have 58 Stanley Cups - no they don't. In general a funny remark about something true is funny; an outright falsehood bears no humor unless there is an exaggeration to make a point. You can say "The Montreal Canadiens have 90 or so Cups. I think. I lost count after 25." That's at least marginally funny. There is no humor in saying the Bruins have 58.
  • Montreal Can't-waitions. Not funny. Generally, a weak pun on the actual team name in sports articles is dull and lifeless, unless it's extra-special. It would be funnier to label them something stereotypical without pretending that it's the team's actual name but linking to an article about them, such as "beating their most hated team, a bunch of wannabe French idiots who can't spell the word "Canadian".
  • "Birth of Some Serious Crap" section is rife with bad random humor. The header itself is bad and random. It's funnier to keep the headers encyclopedic in tone unless you have a consistent unreliable narrator (which you do not - see the Concept section). This section tells a bogus history that bears no connection to truth. Remember, truth, emotionally and/or satirically exaggerated is the height of funny. See Anaheim Ducks, again. It tells of a truth with an exaggerated reaction. Ask yourself: is there comedy fodder in the true history of this team? There always is. Perhaps they have historically been always losing to the Canadiens, for instance. Exploit this. There is a user here, an excellent satirist and a great writer - who is a huge Bruins fan: Gerrycheevers. He might be able to help out here.
  • All the George Bush references are useless and not funny. Again HTBFANJS will help you immensely here - it says all I could say and more about what's wrong with this.

Now, on a plus side, comparing the Bruins' cheating with the Patriots doing the same actually has some potential. It is not an example of the bad random humor that permeates the rest of this article, and I encourage you to consider the distinction. While I'm not sure the Bruins have actually been accused of it, since there is a large national contingent of Boston sports haters, this angle is acceptably conceptual, and even has good humor potential. Unfortunately, it is not well executed here, as the grammar, sentence structure and language is poor, and the random elements overpower the humorous potential.

I will now state something shocking and a bit dismaying. The funniest thing in this article is the list at the end. This statement is shocking because if you read any help files here, they all say "lists aren't funny!" emphatically. Well, this list is short and even relatively strong in humor. Also, the rest of the article is very poor, leaving this the only truly humorous thing.

Concept: 2 You don't have a coheseve concept. The attempts at humor are all over the place, and there is nothing that serves as an overriding concern or singular concept at all. To write a great Uncyclopedia article, finding an overarching concept is absolutely key. You can stray from it for the sake of laughs, such as veering off into occasional tangents, but there must be a singular concept that it boils down to. The Anaheim Ducks article, while it may not be ROFL funny, maintains its concept and makes for a good article. This is very important - your humor will be enhanced because the reader is kept engaged.
Prose and formatting: 4 There are many grammatical errors, many misspellings and a lot of poor sentence structure. If you like, I can go through and correct them, but I think this is a wasted effort until we take care of the random humor problem. The formatting is decent.
Images: 1 You have one tiny image that weakly supports the text and isn't very funny, and a poorly chopped reworking of the actual logo, with no humorous explanation for the change. More images and funny captions are needed.
Miscellaneous: 1 I add this low score because the scores I gave above even seemed too high. Sorry to say. But remember, the scoring is just a reference point - the main thing in Pee review is the feedback.
Final Score: 11 This article would probably not survive a vote for deletion as it is. Even if we fix the poor language, which is a huge problem, it is still very weak. But let me encourage you to do the work necessary to improve it. I can help with the language issues, and I might be able to help with a more cohesive concept. You and your writing will benefit from it. Like it or not, like school creative writing class, good comedy is hard work here. I hope you revisit this and get to writing good NHL articles - we need them.
Reviewer: Globaltourniquet GlobalTourniquetUnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 06:50, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects