Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Cake Killers 2

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Cake Killers 2

Cake Killers was reviewed a while back, but I changed it a lot since then and would like it re-reviewed, please. Thanks.

Sean Cashen 09:21, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

John Lydon Pee Tag Fear Not! John Lydon
is here to Pee all over you!

If he hasn't reviewed it
within 24 hours, remove this
tag and call the paramedics. He probably OD'ed again.

Now that I found it, I'm on it. --John Lydon 16:14, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Humour: 7 Here we go. Overall, I found this to be a pretty amusing article. I enjoyed the way you abandoned the standard encyclopedia entry format for more of a story time feel. You had some pretty solid humor mixed throughout, especially in the first paragraph. The main thing that hurt this article was that there was no example of actual cake killing. If I'm reading an article about cake killers I want to have a little detail as to what methods they may use or maybe the most infamous cases of cake killing in history. Since you've chosen a fictional topic to write about, building a background for it in your article is imperative. A solid background would take this article from silly to really funny.

Now that my main concerns are out of the way, I'll break it down section by section for you.

Section 1 - Intro

This section is extremely short. A good intro should highlight the keynotes of your article and set the entire article up for the reader. This should also be your most solid section so it can hook the reader. You do a solid job of defining the topic, but you really need to expand this section to give an overall highlight of the article. You could list things like when cake killing started, what cake killing represents, how many known cake killing incidents there have been, etc. Really focus on building a solid background which you can build the whole article on.

Section 2 - Early History

I was a little dissapointed that this section didn't start with the line, "Once upon a time", because it reads a lot like a fairy tale. I like it a lot and theres a good amount of humor mixed in as well. This is definately your most solid section. One note I can make on this section is that you kind of mix between first and third person POV's which causes some confusion. Fortunately, you can easily remedy this by simply changing the word "we" to the word "the".

Section 3 - Trial

You do a solid job of carrying over the story book feel of the article from the 2nd section. However this section seems to start to dwindle a little bit. I feel that you start to reach for humor a little with the line "The crosses they were wearing must contain some poison that excreted large doses of chemicals that make people feel anger. So, as soon as the trial started the next day, all the heretics forcibly confiscated the crosses the Vatican jury members were wearing." It's not that it's a bad line but you make it sound to the reader as if the crosses are the reason the jury is against them. Then, after the heretics take the crosses, they still lose by a landslide. It's all just a little confusing. I would think if the heretics take the crosses away, then the jury would be nicer to them. You see what I mean? My only other problem with this section is that it tends to be a little short. You should try expanding on evidence presented at the trial, maybe some entertaining witnesses like the village baker, and explain the heretics side a little more. Why are they against cakes being holy? What do they want to see happen as a result of the trial. summing up a three year long trial with just over two paragraphs isn't going to cut it, and this is a prime spot to build that background story I talked about at the beginning.

Section 4 - Post trial

I thought that this section lost some of its humor value because it felt rushed. I remember this article being entered into the PLS, so I'm not sure if you were under the gun on a deadline or it was just a simple oversight. Either way this section suffers because of it. Let me explain. I felt that instead of fleshing out some of the obvious spots of this section, you completely bypassed them. For instance, the line, "Many Heretics couldn't figure out what to do next" feels like a missed oppurtunity to me. You could have chosen to flesh out the reactions of the heretics which would have increased the length of the article and gave you some more oppurtunities for humor.

Section 5 - War

Once again we run into the length issue here. You sum up 20 years of war in two paragraphs. That's a hard pill for any reader to swallow. Consider this another oppurtunity to build that background I keep harping on. Go into a little detail about some of the major skirmishes that took place. Maybe there was some espionage afoot, or maybe there was a trator in the midst of the heretics. That's the beauty of a fictional topic. Whatever you can imagine, it could have happened.

Section 6 - Modern Day

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not exactly a big fan of lists. Sure they take up space and fill out a section, but they also come across to the reader as, "Hey, I ran out of ideas right about here". Consider turning the list into a paragraph by going into a little more detail like you did in your first list. For instance, instead of listing 1,2,3,etc. write something like,

"A cake killer can be recognized by several key characteristics. First and foremost, cake killers hate cake. If you run into someone that likes cake they are probably not a cake killer, as they would probably rather eat it than kill it. Another tell tale sign of cake killers is... etc."

For some reason (again, maybe its just me), a paragraph listing achieves the same goal as an actual list but it just looks better. I can't really explain it much better, it just gives me a fuzzy feeling inside I guess.

Concept: 6 The idea for your article is slightly below average. Topics that are fictional are usually more difficult to sell then those grounded in reality. No matter how solid the article is, they usually tend to come across a little silly. I think you did pretty well with the topic you've chosen, its just going to be difficult to gain attention for a topic that people don't even know exists.

I would definately recommend focusing on building a solid backstory for your article. Theres a lot of areas that you left untouched with this idea. I expanded on some of them above and I think you can come up with a lot more as well. A solid backstory is going to lift your article from that kinda cheesy, kinda funny area, into a very funny, must read.

Prose and formatting: 7 I'm not the best person in the world to give advise on spelling and grammer, but I didn't see anything that jumped out at me here. You can always check out Uncyclopedia's proofreading service for a much more thorough evaluation of that.

I do think the length is a bit of a factor at times. Some of your sections, such as the Post trial could actually be sub-sections. Again, I'm not the best at this kind of stuff and I would highly recommend a run through of the proof reading service.

Images: 5 I felt that the images seemed a little cluttered together. Try moving some to the other side of the page. Putting all your images on one side is not good for the Fung Shuei or whatever. I would also suggest setting an image at the top as your main image.

One last bit of advice would be to focus on making sure your images tell a story of their own. What I mean is if the captions and images feel a bit random to you, that feeling will be magnified 10 fold on the reader. Make sure the images follow the narrative and take your time writing the captions. Captions are an excellent chance at injecting humor when done right.

Miscellaneous: 6.3 Averaged Score
Final Score: 31.3 This article is very close to being something very good. Really focus on building up a believable backstory for the reader to sink their teeth into. Also, try to expand on the subjects I mentioned above, especially in the sections that are short. If you can achieve that, this will be a really solid article
Reviewer: --John Lydon 17:56, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools