Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Crazy Frog

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Crazy Frog

I dont know i think its alright --Ironic Youth 15:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Ironic Youth 15:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I got yo back homie this article will be reviewed within the next few hours Sir ACROLO KUNFPWAOTMFA •(SPAM) 09:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Crazy Frog
is Being Reviewed By
Sir ACROLO KUNFPWAOTMFA •(SPAM)
Your #1 Source for beer flavoured Pee
And Hydroponically grown venus fly traps
Humour: 4.6 Let me start by saying that this article is definitely a good start. Why i say start is because it has a long way to go before reaching it's full potential. I broke this review down into sections and came up with these results. Overall your article is not flowing in regards to humor. While I like the idea of turning a fictional ringtone character into an actual celebrity with real, typical experiences, it seems a bit too cliche' currently and with a better style that makes sense it could be developed into a humorous concept. Certain jokes included in this article do make sense and make certain parts of it enjoyable, such as the combination of two genre's of music to make a new random genre of music, indicating that this song became so popular, even though it is so random and pointless and includes a frog making funny noises. On the other hand other parts make absolutely no sense, such as eating water and drinking food. I personally found this just plain silly. I think to improve the humour you would need to definitely work on your flow of things and develop a clearer concept, because you currently have your concepts mixed up without much structure, which I will discuss next.
Concept: 4.3 Your concept is just under halfway there. As i understand it you want to write a biography of this ringtone fictional character, however the article becomes very difficult to understand when alot of it is so randomized. Therefore it is better that I break it down into sections so you can understand where your concept is lacking:
  • === Introduction ===

Your introduction is short and does not do what an introduction is supposed to. You confuse your time zones by mentioning 0 AD and then saying in the origins section that he was born when the spice girls came out. The God of America part is also pretty random and lacks in humor. Expand on the introduction and perhaps take a look at the introduction of other real biography's of real celebrities in order to get a good idea on how to use their examples to create a satirical outlook on this fictional character's life.

  • === Origins ===

Once again i would definitely recommend looking at real wiki articles in order to get ideas on how to write sections that make sense. You tend to drift into randomness allot and it makes the article very difficult to understand. Firstly develop a better suited Headline instead of Origins. Try something like: Early Years . Throughout your article you say things that can be so easily misunderstood by most readers; such as the Hasbury's plan. If you are to reference external factors i would suggest using citations and footnotes to explain to readers what you mean by these factors because not everyone knows what hasbury's even is. You also repeat certain things quite a bit, you start by saying that "The origins of Crazy From are inherently complex. Frog was a result of a complex interbreeding plan" You are saying the same thing twice here and in a very complex way too. instead try something like, "Frog was a result of a complex interbreeding plan which involved... <and carry on from there>" Again people might not know who you are talking about when you mention Stephen Hawkings, use footnotes if you really must use him in your story. The global warming statement is confusing and does not make much sense because it was randomly thrown into this section along with everything else, "remember how the global warming thing went?" What global warming thing? do you mean the whole issue of global warming? And in relation to?

  • === Birth and Big break ===

Noticed how similar the word Birth is to Origins? This does not split your articles into sensible sections, but instead causes repitition. As i said, look at what headings are used on wikipedian biography's. Your order of sentences can make this extremely hard to read. Take a look at this section again. You started repeating the name Crazy Frog unecessarily, where instead you could have used He. Write your sentences in an order which makes it easier to read. I will emphasise this more in the formatting section where this needs to be adressed in more detail. I would also make the song title's relate, they seem too random rather than humorous. I do however like the 12 year old market idea, where you draw attention to the fact that his songs are quite childish and somewhow surprisingly enjoyed by an older generation of people.

  • === Difficult Second Album ===

"charging a small commission fee to each of his fans who in return would see Crazy Frogs extravagant music firsthand." An example of incorrect language use. While you are trying to say "In turn", you say in return, therefore changing the whole meaning of the sentence into something that does not quite make sense. Reword your sentences into a way that makes for comfortable reading instead of saying, "In truth concert touring was born however due to the sheer complexity of Frogs music many unprepared listeners were found to be locked in an appropriately named “trip state” and were unable to help a disappointed frog." Try "The result of frog's desperate plea for attention through many endless tours, was that many unprepared listeners found themselves unceremoniously thrown into a state similar to that of being on a drug trip." Just an example of how your sentences could be re-structured and this goes for many of your sentences.

  • === Political Activism ===

This should not be a section on it's own. There should be a whole section dedicated to his whole career which is then split into further sections containing his period of political participation. I find this section also very hard to understand because of the structure of the sentences once again. The fact that frog ran for congress based on respective political parties is very vague. It does not exactly explain what he did as a politician and sounds more like he found a political title in some lucky packet bought at a local Walmart. Be descriptive as to where his political interests started and ended and slot it in a sensible time within his musical career.

  • === Producer ===

Once again inappropriately headlined. Be more descriptive as to what you are trying to imply here and i think that this should not be the ending of the article. This whole section should be included somewhere within his life story where he first revieved a recording contract and by whom he first revieved his first recording contract then later moving onto a section where he revieved a better deal by Jamstar.

  • In Conclusion:

I think you need to develop more of a story-line for this article which flows and makes sense. Restructure your sentences effectively for a greater concept overall. Once again I strongly suggest taking a look at biographies of real celebrities, which should definitely give you ideas on how to build a typical "True Hollywood Story"

Prose and formatting: 3 While you definitely have an introduction, and sections with pictures, take a closer look at your article. You do not have one single comma! Or for that matter where are the apostrophe's? Some sentences are merged because there aren't any full stops to break them up. Your spelling is generally correct, however you often use words out of context and in the wrong tense. Copy the text into word and run a spell check, you will see what i mean, you should get alot of green lines under your sentences, but this will definitely help spot the mistakes. You also have a sentence that starts with However. Once again i would urge you to look at other articles for ideas on how to write your article in a grammatically correct way.
Images: 4 All of your images are plain crazy frog images. I do like the fact that you used these images in different sections to try and relate them to these sections, but there is your problem, they don't relate very well. The main image is goodish, but (almost) everyone (Who has seen at least a hint of the cover) knows that Playboy magazine does not look anything similar to that image. Manipulate the image into an actual playboy cover, if you are not good at potatoechopping get someone to do it for you or keep googling! Otherwise simply change the caption beneath the picture. As far as the rest of your images are concerned, they are boring and all too similar. Once you develop decent sections, get fitting images to suit these sections that parody perhaps real celebrity paparazzi shots, this will create a more realistic feel to the article and make it funnier. Pictures make up at least half the humor of articles and you should work just as hard on them to be effective in creating a meaningful story.
Miscellaneous: 4 My Overall score for your article which has a long way to go before being a solid article, dont be demotivated in improving this and I truly hope you will keep working on it. All articles start somewhere!
Final Score: 19.9 I think I have said more than enough, but remember to follow by example, the more you read other articles the better you write your articles. I hope you found this thorough feedback useful and not offensive in any way as none of it is intended to insult or criticise negatively in any way but rather be constructive in every way possible in order to enlighten you with true facts rather than false hope or misinformation.
Reviewer: Sir ACROLO KUNFPWAOTMFA •(SPAM) 12:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects