There were 12 links to the article and no article! Now there is. Miley Spears 22:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Miley Spears 22:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
PEE REVIEW IN PROGRESS
of giving you his opinion and pretending you care.
I'll do this one.21:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
|Humour:||7.5||Hey Miley! Good to see you doing some writing around here. Let's see what we've got.
The first thing I immediately notice about this article is the strategy you used for writing it: you copied-and-pasted the Wikipedia article into Uncyclopedia and then, essentially, vandalized it. We've got plenty of articles around here that are written essentially that way - we call them "sporks" - but it's a very iffy strategy. Usually, a vandalized Wikipedia article is far less funny than a parody of a subject begun from scratch. You'll notice, for example, that Penis penis Penis penis penis penis Penis penis is just not as good as, say, Sarah Plain and Tall.
You've done a very good job here, for a spork. It's one of the better sporks I've seen. But the spork still causes you problems, which I'll get to in a bit.
Taking this section-by-section:
Quotes: Okay. You've done all right on the quotes. The Panty Shields joke is a bit cheap, but amusing. To be honest, Oscar Wilde quotes, especially ones about homosexuality, are done to death around here and we're all sick of them. But at least you kept it to two quotes.
Lede: Problems. The lede is where you establish the concept of the article. What I see is Wikipedia's lede, with "porn star" thrown in. To most, this is going to look like you've just accidentally stumbled into the biggest noob trap on Uncyclopedia: take a subject and then declare that he or she is a sexual pervert - gay, a pedophile, a porn star, a pornographer, a bestiophile, whatever. When we Uncyclopedians see that, we roll our eyes. Sometimes, a VFD nomination is the next step.
Now, here, you have some reason for calling Shields a child porn star, since she appeared half-nude at 13.. but her career has spanned about three decades since then. So I'd keep this out of the lede, and save it for a section on her early, oversexualized career, which will come soon enough.
Also, bringing Pedobear into your lede is stumbling into the second-biggest noob trap on Uncyclopedia: the "alternate universe where every pop culture icon is real" concept. This concept has been done to death, and it's never funny. If you're writing an article on Tom Cruise, by all means mention Xenu, but for the love of God do not mention Luigi. Don't say that Tom Cruise is the gay lover of Luigi. That's not satire - it's just idiocy. And you're creeping up on that by throwing Pedobear into the article: Pedobear just doesn't exist in Brooke Shields' universe. You can make a subtle reference to pedobear (like I did in Chris Hansen), but if you assert that pedobear is real, you're causing yourself problems.
I do, however, like your commentary on Pretty Baby, Suddenly Susan, and Lipstick Jungle. That's good satire. So we know you can satirize...
Career/Modeling: Better. Okay, here, there's plenty to say about "child porn star," since you're talking about her early career. The joke that Vogue was known as Vulva, I find very funny. The commentary on the Calvin Klein campaign is both funny and biting.
Career/Film: Good. You're on a roll. Wouldn't touch a thing. The joke that concerned volunteers spent thousands of hours reviewing the film - hilarious. I love that subtle insinuation of hypocrisy. It's awesome that you know how to be subtle, and you're getting it right on your first shot.
Career/College and the Confession: Not bad, but.... This is getting a little too graphic. If you're going to write about child sexuality, it's a necessity to be subtle and to focus on social commentary, like you did in the section above. When you start dragging "stunt dildos" in, the article starts to slide from "witty" to "creepy". Still some great jokes here, though. Her senior thesis being adapted to "Pedobear Goes to College" - awesome. (See, it's fine to mention Pedobear in a context where it's clear that he's fictional.) "On Your Own" rereleased as "Sex For One" - great. Maybe just trim this section down a bit and it'll be fine.
Career/Television appearances: Nice! I'd cut the line about "the youngest porn star to host Friday's" - that isn't very funny. The "two Golden Globes" line is hilarious, although you should say "her breasts" instead of "Brooke Shield's breasts," probably. Otherwise, great job!
Personal life: Weak. See, here's the problem with sporks: you're almost required to write "filler." And this is filler. Calvin Klein's underwear drawer feels unnecessarily random (yes, it's a reference to her modeling career, but it feels absurd instead of satirical). The "handled my balls" line is cute, but kinda throwaway. I think if you simply cut this whole four-paragraph section, it would improve the article.
Postpartum Depression: Good. A nice little skewering of Scientology. They're an easy target, but it's done well here. A thought: it would be funny if "Down Came the Rain: Why Scientology is Stupid." were adapted into a movie with a pornographic title. That kind of repetition always gets a laugh. Cut the Fantasy Island paragraph; it's unnecessary and not good satire.
Relationship with Michael Jackson: Meh. Jackson jokes are done to death. Yeah, I know she had a relationship with Michael Jackson, but there's no way to do this in any original way that I can think of. I'd lose it. Just because it's in Wikipedia doesn't mean it has to be here.
Filmography: Lose it. This is what we call listcruft. Information, like Brooke Shield's actual filmography, is expressed well in list or table form. Comedy is not. A list of porn "alternate titles" just takes up a lot of space, isn't very funny, and no one will read it. Like I said: just because it's in Wikipedia doesn't mean it has to be here.
|Concept:||8||The concept is that it's a spork, which is weak. But you managed to do it so there was an overarching theme about how she took her clothes off a lot as a child, so at least it *has* an overarching theme. Not bad.|
|Prose and formatting:||9||You write exceptionally well. And I'm not going to be patronizing and say "You write exceptionally well for a teenage girl." You write exceptionally well for an Uncyclopedian.
The formatting is... okay. I mean, it's a copy of the Wikipedia formatting, so it can't be awful. But there are long sections that are just text, text, text, with no pictures to break it up, and the table at the bottom will be a big turn-off to most Uncyclopedians.
|Images:||7||The images are fine: the Wikipedia picture, and a picture to illustrate her oversexualized career as a child. I think this article needs at least one more picture.|
|Miscellaneous:||8||Eight, for no reason.|
|Final Score:||39.5||So, yeah, a 39.5/50. The guildelines put that at "More than adequate: might be VFH." And I think there's a featured article in the rough in here. Chisel away some of the less funny stuff, and you're 75% of the way there. It's pretty fucking fantastic for a first effort. Good work!|
|Reviewer:||22:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)|
Thanks for peeing on me! I mean on Brooke. I believe this will be very helpful to me. A lot of what you pointed out as weak I wondered about, so it will go in the dumpster. I'll post more on your user talk. Thanks! Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
After rewriting the article, I realized I followed virtually every suggestion you made. This isn't because you made them, but because I really believe your suggestions made the article better. It was hard cutting out parts I worked very hard on. But if it doesn't get up the humor, it's circumsized. Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)