First review is here: Uncyclopedia:Pee_Review/Constantine_V. Its a bit esoteric, but the goal is that the article should explain itself enough that the reader should "get it" or at least sorta get it just by reading the article. If you need to read several wikipedia articles to get this, then the article's not funny and I need to do more work on it.
Second opinion of Uncyclopedia:Pee_Review/Constantine_V. I didn't get it. It might even pass for real information if it didn't have the pictures to make fun of itself. My reaction, after reading it through, was a resounding "meh."
Mnbvcxz 01:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
As it just so happens, I wrote large swaths of the mammoth Byzantine Empire article. Let uncle YouFang look at it.
I'm afraid I agree with you on this one. It's a meh. This article's downfall are all of its facts. They bog it down. Cut as many facts as you can unless they can be spun as funny.
As I understand it, the concept is that the article is a thinly-disguised propeganda piece written by Constantine V himself. That's an okay comic choice, but there are ways to refine the funny angle. See below.
Prose and formatting:
Written well, only a couple word useage errors, no ugliness.
Images do what they're supposed to do and are completely appropriate.
I think this article has a conflict between the Encyclopedic style and the personal style of the "author", Constantine V. I've tried writing an article in the thinly-disguised-propeganda-piece-written-by-an-asshole-style before, and I know it's very difficult. The dry tone robs the supposed author of his caustic voice and therefore leeches away the funny. In the end, I decided it would be funnier to just write the damn thing in the first person. The result is Charles Sumner, which I think is hilarious but nobody else seems to like that much. The point is that it is better now than it was with an Encyclopedic tone. I'm not suggesting this is the approach you should take: you have to find the right tone for Constantine V's ranting. Is it a personal screed written in the first person about the evils of idolatry, or is it a dryly written piece with occasional bouts of zealotry, or something in between?
I don't think this article has found its voice yet. It could be very funny if you discover the right tone. Edit out some of those troublesome facts. Let Wikipedia worry about those. Good luck, and once again thanks for reviewing my article.