Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Cheerios

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Cheerios

Probably needs expansion. Would like to know what's been done right, what's just utterly wrong, and what needs to be done. MacManiasig.png MacManiasig-cheerios.png MacManiasig-holmes.png MacManiasig-starwars.png MacManiasig-firefly.png MacManiasig-pixar.png MacManiasig-oregon.png MacManiasig-lesmiz.png MacManiasig-doctor.png 16px-HalLogo.png Portal16px.png UncycLensFlare16px.pngDalek16px.png 16px-ChekhovSig.png16px-JapanSig.png Sir MacMania GUN 15:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

After looking at some of the other reviews it occured to me that I should place a little message saying that I was going to review it before I started. I'll do that before I finish next time.Sequence 02:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Humour: 6 Hey, you've reviewed one of my articles so the least I can do is review on of yours and copy your review format (which was in turn copied from User:Staircase).
  • Intro - Nice, obviously setting up the rest of the article so not too much can be done here. Liked the last line about the FDA
  • Cheerios as breakfast cereal - The way you started listing the ways that the supposedly healthy cereal started selling out to move into different markets but I didn't get the last item (Millenios) until thinking about it (the 2000 part) a bit. That's alright for jokes where you aren't meant to get it until later on anyway but when it's a listing type of thing the punchline is meant to come to them straight away while the other images are still in the person's head. You've got honey, sugar, 'organic', fruity, cheesy, and then a joke about the name and the year 2000. Throwing people off like that is good as well, but as I said it was just to a bit too 'I don't get it' at first.
  • In the FDA section the last part in particular about rebranding their cereal from an oat to a different name for the oat was good. Some people (such as me) might need to look it up but they'll find it funny when they do (this is one of the it works well when you get the joke later jokes). Other than that was a bit...could have morish. Maybe you could expand a bit upon this part with background information on who/how the research was conducted or something about a highly publicised court case. Perhaps the FDA could have sued them or something like that and you could link it back to a similar high profile case that already happened (I can't think of any at the moment but if you do some research you might be able to find one).
  • PharmacologyI smiled right through the reasons why it reduces cholesterol. One thing in the vein of what you currently have is to possibly include the after effect of vomiting as part of the process rather than an adverse side effect...I don't know, might be too low brow so keep it as it is if you want. My only other suggestion is that you could play up the clinical testing part of it using some of the valid criticisms of clinical testing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial#Criticism
  • I didn't really get the line on Clinical use...maybe you could expand on this with a detailed explanation of how to eat breakfast cereal?
  • The adverse effects were good. Not too long and not too short.
  • Advertising - This was the section where you got the most laugh out loud parts, or maybe that was because I had started feeling jolly by reading the earlier sections. I liked the first joke about the Cheerios kid although I initially thought you were going to relate it back to Pop-eye. Maybe you could chuck in a reference to "unlike spinach" after the part where is says 'endow people with super powers'. The second joke is nicely absurd featuring inanimate cartoons suing their own creators. The only thing I think could make this even better is to have them suing him for making them eat Cheerios as well as that fits in with the other claims of eating Cheerios to be a difficult thing to do. Anyone who has studied Shakespeare in highschool (aka everyone) will find the last part funny.
Concept: 6 A well known breakfast cereal combined with the phamaceutical industry sets it up for a lot of good laughs. However I don't think you are fully carving out all the different aspects of these two topics. I think there is still lots more stuff about the dirty and cheap tricks that the pharmacy companies pull, the overrated claims about vitamins, minerals, etc and how healthy cereals claim to be even if they are packed with sugar. There are many avenues to pursue.
Prose and formatting: 7 The formatting is well laid out with not too many areas of white space. It's a good use of sub-headings, no overuse of lists, no quotes (which I dislike as well), and the pictures are well laid out too. A couple of things I noted:
  • Your spelling was practically flawless for the most part, but there were a couple of little things I noticed. 'Healthfulness' in the FDA controversy part would be better written as 'health benefits'. Healthfulness just sounds...wrong somehow even though technically it works as a word. I think the one you might have been going for was healthiness?
  • There were one or two sentences that didn't roll the tongue as easily such as 'results regarding the healthiness of eating Cheerios regularly were published', I'd probably move the adverb to the front so that it is in front of the word eating. You can find them by doing the read aloud test and might want to consider if you can change the wording around so it sounds better.
  • You may also want to capitalise the first letters of the items in the list. But I guess it can also work without them. It's basically a stylistic thing.
  • I wasn't sure if avenasativa should be capitalised throughout the article or not. On the one hand it is a common noun (although it's not that common), which we don't capitalise, but I think you are using it more in a brand name sense which would mean it should be capitalised.
Images: 9 Two images are pretty good for an article of this size. If you do expand it further though I would probably suggest you add another one in between the current two. The photoshop work on both of them is very nice and professional. The writing on banner on the top one is a little fuzzy and I needed to lean in a bit to read it fully, I think I read you saying that gif works better than jpg for small text (in the Six Hats review) so maybe you could try that (or perhaps you already have). No biggie.
Miscellaneous: 6 What is this section even for? I thought everything has been covered. Oh well I'll use it as a general 'enjoyment' and 'would I email this article for my friends to read' section. It's a solid base to build upon and I look forward to seeing what you will do with it, but it will be even better once you have fully realised your ideas. With a bit of work I would probably email it to some of my friends.
Final Score: 34 A pretty decent article overall but as I said there are still even more things you can do with it. If you have any comments or want to discuss it you can do it on my talk page, which reminds me that I haven't thanked you yet for reviewing my article before, so I'm going to run off now and do that now. Am I the only one who finds assigning an arbitrary score to be difficult?
Reviewer: Sequence 02:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools