Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Bronco McStabber's Fudge Factory
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Not sure what this is about - my Mother wrote most of it Sog1970 14:57, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
|Humour:||5||First things first here. I have to say that I am not only impressed, but thoroughly amazed by the amount of double entendres you were able to come up with. You should seriously get a medal or a coupon to Sizzlers or something for that. Unfortunately, that only goes so far. By the midpoint of the article, the homo jokes get a little stale. I really took some time with this review trying to figure out just how you could keep the humor fresh. I realized that the main hurdle to overcome is that this article is unique in that it’s not necessarily about a particular subject (i.e. France, dogs, Jerry Springer, etc.) but it’s more an article about a double entendre. Kind of makes it hard to branch out.
The best suggestion I was able to produce would be to cut back on the gay jokes a little. That way, they don’t wear on the reader quite as fast. For instance, in the very first paragraph, I count 5 references to homosexuality. That’s just the first paragraph! The flipside to this suggestion is that you would have to trim some of the writing (which is pretty good). Other than that, I wasn’t able to come up with a way to inject some variety into this article without changing the entire article.
The only other comment I have about the humor in this article is that it felt a little odd to me as the reader that the employees gave so much information to the tourists. For instance, Gaylord goes on for a solid three paragraphs. I thought that this kind of hurt the “factory tour” vibe you had going. I really thought you sold the whole tour angle pretty well up to this point. I would suggest maybe cutting the paragraph on looking after the animals to remedy this. For starters, it would obviously trim Guy’s contribution, achieving our goal of keeping that “factory tour” feel. Secondly, that whole paragraph feels like a real stretch. I really can’t see a confectionary company having dogs, chicken hawks, cats, donkeys, and turkeys. It just doesn’t make much sense. I know you tried to explain all the animals, but it felt forced in for the sake of making a dick joke to me.
|Concept:||5||Here again, we have a bit of a catch 22 situation. While the idea of creating a fictional company and a world surrounding that company based on the idea of double entendres is imaginative and creative to say the least, it’s sort of pigeon holes the writer with regards to what kind of humor they can use. So, in a nutshell, the article’s subject is unique and creative, but it limits the author’s ability to vary the humor. Adding variety to the humor would cause the subject to change, basically making it a completely different article. And the room is spinning……
What I can say here is that I would have liked to have seen a little more at the end. I really liked the way you threw in the twist about Bronco McStabber being against employing homosexuals, and would have liked to have seen a little more in that regards. This may also be an opportunity to throw in a little humor that breaks the rest of the articles mold and adds a little variety. Maybe a little more detail about how Bronco couldn’t stand homosexuals or a few facts about Bronco’s blatant discrimination against gays sprinkled here and there could act as a sort of counterbalance for all the gay jokes.
|Prose and formatting:||7||I really thought you did a great job keeping the feel of a factory tour throughout. As I said in the humor section, I think the interview (or speech or whatever you want to call it) by Gaylord stretched a little far. Both in length and reasoning. Trimming that back would really cement the entire feel of the article.
There were a few very minor grammatical and spelling errors that I noticed but not enough to really be of concern. I would suggest running the article through spell check or the PRS if you plan on putting this on VFH. (I’m thinking I may have seen it on VFH already but I wasn’t sure.)
The one flaw I can point out in this section is that I think the formatting is a little bland. The reason I feel that way is because you seem to have placed all the images on the right side of the article and nothing on the left. Switching a few of those images to the left side would help to balance the whole thing out visually.
|Images:||7||I thought the images tied in with the article very well and were pretty entertaining. As I said in the previous section, it definitely wouldn’t be a bad idea to move a few of the images to the left to make the article a little more aesthetically pleasing. Other than that, not much to say here. Good solid images, good captions, and everything ties together nicely and feels natural. Nice work.|
|Final Score:||30||I know it took a long time to get this reviewed, and I think that was mainly due to the fact that it was a difficult article to review. I know that there aren’t a ton of suggestions for improvement in here but I tried to come up with ways to improve the article while keeping the common theme intact. That proved to be a big challenge, but I hope some of what I came up with can be useful to you (or, in the case of this article, your mom).|
|Reviewer:||-- ~ *You can be Robin* (talk) 14:35, October 25, 2010 (UTC)|