Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Captain D (quick)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Help me edit and review Captain D you know like the restaurant or rather the guy who the place is named after. Also put a link to his page from other pages that way more people will get to it and and add to it. Dcpanthers40 22:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
PEE REVIEW IN PROGRESS
of giving you his opinion and pretending you care.
|Humour:||3.5||Hey, Dcpanthers! Let's see what we've got here.
Lede: 5. It's a little confusing, the prose is a little sloppy, and it's kind of random. It doesn't give a very clear idea of what the article is going to be about. But the joke about him having one incredibly cool job and also the world's most menial and pointless side-job is kind of funny.
Origin and Birth: 3. Okay, this section is a typical beginner's mistake. People new to Uncyclopedia tend to write an "origin" section and then say entirely random things in it. Like "Some people believe that cheese was created in 1,000,423 B.C. when Thor choked on a biscuit and hacked up some fermented milk." They're really never that funny. To your credit, though, you didn't fall into the beginner's trap of making the origin section involve pop culture icons and Internet memes. Still, this needs to be totally rewritten - or omitted.
The Restaurant: 3. Really, no jokes in here. This is just a fork from Wikipedia with a couple random things added in: cheerios, a tree, Rafael Nadal, none of which have anything to do with the restaurant. I mean, if you're writing an article about the restaurant, it's kind of got to satirize the restaurant at least in some way. One test to do with any article you write: take the title of your article (here: "Captain D") and replace it with, I don't know, Tom Hanks. Does the article make roughly as much sense now as it did before? If so, it needs a lot of work.
Achieving Captain: 5. Okay, there's a seed of a joke here, in that the answer to the question "What is Captain D" a captain of is not the obvious "a fishing boat" but rather "every single branch of the U.S. military." Yeah, that could be made funny. But what the fuck is Hulk Hogan doing in here? I do like the subtle dig at the Coast Guard - that was worth a smile.
Early Naval Career: 2. This section is awful. Do you know how many times I've heard the semen/seamen pun? Eight hundred billion times. In general, nautical homosexuality is played out and unfunny. And then the article just starts listing random celebrities, fictional characters, and Internet memes. Tom Brokaw, Tony the Tiger, the surrender of France - why is this stuff in here? What the hell does any of it have to do with Captain D's?
Pirate: 5. The first paragraph is a little random, but actually pretty funny: a pirate who forces people to eat his delicious cereal. And it does make some sense to have Captain D be a pirate, since they're both, you know, ship captains. But the second paragraph is just more random meme-littered crap. Sorry. I know that's not very polite, but you've got to break that habit.
Superpowers: 0. This is what we call listcruft - a random list of stuff that has absolutely no association with the subject and no reason to exist. Our general policy here is to shoot it on sight.
The rest of the article: not a good score. Looking down the article, I see almost nothing that has to do with Captain D - just more lists and meme-riddled nonsense.
|Concept:||2||Okay, this is the bottom line for this article. There is the potential to write a funny article about Captain D. Really, there is. But you can't go about it this way. When you write an article like that, really, every sentence has to have something to do with Captain D's restaurant - or at the very least, be about a coherent character who has his roots somewhere in the reality of Captain D's restaurant.
I'll give you the same advice I give to most new writers: every good article is set in a universe. Sometimes it's set in the real universe. Sometimes it's set in a universe where a TV show is real. Usually it's set in a universe that resembles our own, but with one or two tweaks.
When an article is set in a universe where every pop culture icon and Internet meme is real, the article is shit 100% of the time. If you ever find that Link and Bill Paxton are rescuing the subject of your article from Skeletor, it is time to immediately start over.
|Prose and formatting:||8||Actually, your prose is pretty clean. You can write. There are some minor formatting issues - the lists, the overlong table of contents, some weird whitespace at the top, no pictures.|
|Images:||0||There are no images. It could use a few.|
|Final Score:||18.5||I really hope you haven't taken too much offense to my review. Because the thing is, this article shows that you have a lot of promise. You've successfully pulled off a few funny jokes. Your sentences are structured in a way that's easy to read. Your writing style is clean. You're obviously a smart guy with an eye for absurdity.
But this article is a typical beginner's mistake. Don't feel bad! We've all written one. Mine was Wendy Thomas, and the guy giving me this exact Pee Review was Cajek, in which he basically said: yeah, you can write, but this is absolute shit. And the very next article I wrote was Japanese High Schools, which went on to become a pretty popular feature.
What was the difference between those two articles? Basically, consistency of universe. In Wendy Thomas, I had characters from Chrono Trigger, Michael Jackson, and various fast food mascots, all hanging out with each other. It was a total mess. In Japanese High Schools, my universe was simply what the real world would be like if all anime was true. Much cleaner.
So, basically, my advice to you is: think of something you're familiar with, and write an article that makes fun of it, and don't mention anything you've seen on TV. Pretty simple. Honestly, if you want to make fun of Captain D's, there are a lot of ways to go about it. But you should be thinking about "food poisoning" or "fishery depletion" - not "Bruce Willis" or "Smurfette."
|Reviewer:||19:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)|