Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Connery Canard

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 05:02, June 8, 2007 by AmericanBastard (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Connery Canard

I don't want a review. Just ideas please! --AmericanBastard 22:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, some ideas, in the form of questions that may set you off in a direction.
  • Do other languages exhibit a similar phenomenon ? E.g. how does it relate to the Japanese haiku, the French canard and the Italian barzelletta ?
  • Ashuming the Canard Shoshiety ishshuesh an annual Award, who won lasht yearsh one an' wiv what gem of Canarderie?
  • What is the history of the Connery Canard ? Can you trace a first occurence, say by st Patrick, or perhaps st Brandon, or twelfth century monks or some such ? How did it migrate across the world ? What is the influence of modern media (telephone, radio, comsat) on the Canard ?
  • It is rumoured that the previous pope had a great fondness for Connery Canards. What evidence exists ? Is it true that he owned a large collection of antique Canards which the Vatican cannot trace the proper origin of, and that some say were in fact stolen during WW II from countries occupied by the Nazis?
Hope it helps, -- di Mario 08:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I was going to suggest the same as di Mario's #4, a history of the CC. The opening sentences of this piece are so poncy-highbrow that the reader is going to have trouble figuring out what you're talking about. Careful with that -- it sets a faux-erudite tone but if overdone it also gets annoying as hell. A history of the form might clarify things.
I think there might be an indefinable je ne sais pas which would connect the two parts of a Connery Canard, and which would separate a good CC from a bad one. A poetic fit? A metaphorical appropriateness? Tom Waits once referred to "song-logic" as the reason some apparently illogical or just plain weird imagery appears in some of his stuff. What is the Canard-logic which separates a good Connery Canard from a merely random -- hence uninteresting -- one? ----OEJ 17:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help!--AmericanBastard 05:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yesh, do a history of the Connery Canard. But this needs to get off the old article section that needs reviewing so I'll review it. --Scout JoshHJ's Page and His Talk 03:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Humour: 7 It isn't extremely humorous, but it is funny.
Concept: 9 It is a really good concept, but I believe you should change all the 's' in the article to 'sh' to demonstrate the concept even further.
Prose and formatting: 8 The formatting is great and so is the prose.
Images: 9 The use of images was good, but there were only two images.
Miscellaneous: 10 Your diction is amazing.
Final Score: 43 There are comments up above that you didn't take into consideration that would help your article out a lot.
Reviewer: --Scout JoshHJ's Page and His Talk 03:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
55px-ThinkerToilet.jpg JoshHJ has successfully reviewed your article you submitted to Pee Review. Any questions or comments can go to his talk page. Hopefully you will enjoy! Need more editing or reviewing? Ask for it on my talk page!I'll help with creating articles also.

Personal tools
projects