Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Britainy Spear

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Britainy Spear

Unintentionally inspired by Hyperbole, the Britainy Spear can fly without taking a break for as long as a week, or just about the same length of time you can leave this review here undisturbed if yee like. Thank you for taking it, if that be your choice. Aleister 12:05 3-5-'11

The first image is funny because it's so badly 'chopped. Sir SockySexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk)Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:27, 3 May 2011
With your comment I am reminded of your cold-heart and mocking tones directed at the suffering of others. There was no photochopping on the pic, it is accurate photographic evidence of a distressing moment in that man's life. Those blue lines on the ocean are tiny posts set up by fishermen, and the ragged outlines around the man's body is his soul escaping. I am distressed to have to work on the same website as you, but I have quite a few hundred hours left in my community service and must stick around. Aleister 18:52 3-5-'11
I got this one Ali ali ali. Ive done a little bit of it, but it will take a while to finish, have patience :) --ShabiDOO 18:04, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
Humour: 6 Hey Ali...how are you? This article is a funny idea, what a fabulous idea. I dont see it at a all around funny level yet for a few reasons, while it is funny for sure...its hard to grasp the extent of the sheer amazing humour because of how confusing it all is. Though it is peppered with verry funny moments I just get way too lost. Im sorry, I didnt laugh out loud during the article. But Ill give you a run down of what I found funny. And how easily it could be to make this article funny enough to LOL.

First: the article over all, while yet, it is really funny, indirectly making fun of Britney spears through the analogy of a strange, anatomically impossible animal interspersed with a couple funny pictures and kept me smiling throughout and it has a funny cynical/parody tone throughout unfortunately upto now, Im not wowed by the article over all, its not missing much but its definitely missing a big punch in the humour and more so a clear idea/concept, Ill get to that later though.

The first paragraph, its great how you start off serious in an encyclopedic style, with a medium sized joke about BS eating a lot (which im not sure how its related to brittany spears though its absurd and funny), then having no natural enemies (which im not sure how it related to her the singer unless you are being ironic as she has tons of enemies) and ends on a great gag about having no friends. I find this a great beginning paragraph and sets a good tone for the article.

The next paragraph is a great joke about Brittanies fleeting nature and it seems well crafted. The following paragraph about her landing in a town square, for me is one of the funniest moments of the article as well as the following paragraph (continuing with the fleeting brittany theme).

Im a little lost in the next paragraph about there being 200 living in England. Is this a reference to football players? Or to what exactly. Its funny-ish but as I dont see how living in England and being protected by the prince and there being 200 of them has to do with brittany the singer and the humour is lost in the confusion. At this point im beginning to doubt if the article is about the singer or if its just some strange bird (animal).

The next paragraph is cute again, but the idea of the bird spearing human beings is kind of introduced out of no where, vaguely related to Britany Spears, and so again, the funny (and it is funny) is again lost in the confusion.

Description and Discovery: The first two paragraphs, evocative descriptions of the bird. Be careful not to let your good evocative writing interfere with the energy of the piece set up in the introduction. I like your evocative writing and its funny, but if it goes on two paragraphs it may drag down the pace a little and this is the only place in the article where this happens.

The paragraph ending in "my word", we are now talking about a guy discovering the bird in the past, which is totally unrelated to anything said before filled with entirely new ideas, nothing to do with Britanny Spears the singer and I ask myself, what is this article about...is it about Britanny Spears the singer or some made up bird with qualities that are described in a way that ramble all over the place. I also dont really find this paragraph funny, maybe there are historical references that I dont get.

In the following paragraph, it continues as such, the random sphincter comment comes out of nowhere but is a rare example of good bathroom humour in my humble opinion. It is, pretty much at this moment, the first time around that I read the article that I think, maybe this article has nothing to do with Britany Spears the singer and is about a random strange bird that will stab humans with its beak. "Check out da ladies" also funny at end of P.

The next paragraph is cute, Henry's fiancees, kind of cute, again, a new random explanation of the history of the birds existence in this world and so I feel like im lost more than laughing (why are you explaining the history of mans documentation of this bird for no apparant reason), though the "my word" at the end is funny and at least for me redeems it all.

Danger danger will robinson: In the first paragraph, danger danger reference is cute. Britany can walk right up to you, so are you referencing the person again? But then you say bloody feathers, so is it just an article about the bird? The humour is funny but again im confused so I don't laugh as much as I should. More examples of confusion: Spear uses the tip as a weapon against opponents, again I dont know if this is about the bird or the person. Perhaps both? Spear whistling, this is really funny if its a reference to the singer. I like.

The following paragraph is so random that I laugh, cause its absurd, and funny random absurd, well written, which I love even though I am as confused as I could possibly be. Last paragraph, like the previous ones, you should call your ma, nice random quack at the end of the paragraph, its funny.

The taming of the spear: This is funny like the rest of the article in that, its random and absurd and it puts a smile on my face. Still confused. Theres no particularly extra funny moment.

Regulations: This is so extra surreal that I dont even no what to think except that Im really laughing deep down inside cause you are really gifted at writing strange surreal stuff. But again, I dont know if you are referring to Britany the person (birthmark, photographing from one side) so I dont know what to think, I dont know how to laugh.

Categories: Very funny.

Concept: 3 I feel bad giving you a three, but I only do so, cause first, I love you dude, and second, because I dont get it. I have four theories after going over this article a few times. Either 1) its a totally random article about a bird and has nothing to do with Brittany. 2) Its an article about Brittany spears using the bird as an allegory (though in a really bizzare way). 3) Its a mixture of the two (which as it is now, doesnt work as it just served to confuse the hell out of me). or 4) You dont have any idea yourself and are just writing stuff. Of course, there could be a 5...something other than these, but it doesnt come across to me. This is all just in my humble point of view, but this article will really benefit if its clear to the reader which of these it is. Reasons why it might be about Brittany?: Birthmark, whistling (singing), the name of the article, the picture that looks a little like her, the migrating around randomly (her crazy behaviour in the past going to random parities), killing opponents/having no friends (the suffering of a celebrity). Reasons why it might not be about Brittany?: There are many random things that have nothing to do with her, like being a giant animal of which there are 200 in the UK, and being a protected species, this throws me off more than anything else. As well, the historian references in the past and the paragraph about Henry the VIII which I just dont know what any of it has to do with Britany. The ultimate problem is, if I don't know what you are really on about, the great humour that is all over it and throughout this article, is diluted, and in my humble opinion, is donea lot.

If this is just a really random absurd article, thats great, there arent enough of those articles here on uncyclopedia, but I think you should get rid of the ambiguity in that case and not reference multiple things throughout the article (like the reference to the bird multiple times in history, links to Britany the singer (even if not intended) multiple times etc... but make it truly random and absurd.

Prose and formatting: 9 Consider this only a reflection on the narrative itself. Its quite well written. Thats not a reflection on the concept and humour mentioned above. It could use more links.
Images: 2 Im going to assume that these two photos are just random photos and you will put either real ones in later (i.e. chopped well) or make them relevant to the article with captions and placed strategically. Sorry, but I just don't see what you are trying to do with the second image accept show someone who looks like Britany Spears. There is also a flamingo, unrelated to a giant bird with a beak that will kill you.
Miscellaneous: 10 I give you ten points cause I love your writing, I assume you are going somewhere here and you are just looking for a first review.
Final Score: 30 Anyways, as you can see from everything Im written, Im basically just totally confused. Are you writing an absurd article? If so, why so many consistent references? Or are you writing an article about some made up bird and or Brittany Spears the singer? If so, make it clear which one you are doing. Your humour so far...well, its top notch for what kind of article this is in the current state it is in, but I really believe that if you can edit the article to clear up all of my problems with it, you will be able to also infuse even greater humour if not incredible humour into the article. GOOOOOD LUCK!

And thanks for ignoring the contractions wihtout apostraphes and slight spelling iregularities pall

Reviewer: --ShabiDOO 02:17, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools