Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Daily News

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 14:12, March 14, 2010 by Hiatus Hernia (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit Daily News

Conservation week entry that I haven't done much with since.                              Puppy's talk page00:40, June 5, 2009 Tuesday, 09:23, Mar 9 2010 UTC

  • I think I'll try my hand on this one. ~Scriptsiggy.JPGTelephonesig Star Starsig Kidneysig 09:53, Mar 14, 2010
Humour: 7 Well, firstly this reads like a lot of your articles - deadpan, subtle, and you have to look really hard to find the jokes. At times I felt that it was a chore reading through some parts, although overally the prose, sturcture, and stuff are very good. Also the beginning of your article is clearly based off the first few paragraphs of Wikipedia's article, and you seemed to have missed the funnier parts, because I laughed out loud at "HOMO NEST RAIDED, QUEEN BEES ARE STINGING MAD!" under "Historic Front Pages", and of course I think a similar section would work well in your article. I have also decided to make this review into a long rambling essay so bear with me.

Your first two sections deal primarily with modern-ish events covered by real tabloids and transposing them onto a 1900's alternative. While this is ok and is a bit ironic, I can see that Puppy does not do punchlines, because most of the jokes in your article are more smiles than laughs for me. "The first year" felt like a long and rambling way to say something very obvious - that newspapers twist the news - however I laughed a little at "Australia being the next sovereign land to declare dominion". I also like the Nostradamus section more, because it had more uh... stuff, and is packs a bit more irony. I've noticed that the "news" are not actually that outrageous, which decreases it's potential for more obvious humour which would probably get more laughs. On the other hand this quality reflects the conservative nature of the 1900's, but then again if you want to do this the news are not conservative enough to generate much laughs, either, because as you know good satire needs to exaggerate a bit. They are, however, enough to be subtle and high-brow-ish, if that's what you're aiming for, and probably enough to get a smile or two.

And then there are the comic characters as reporters thing, which is ok as far as the "Hey I get that reference" factor goes, and also sort of refers to "The Daily News served as the model for the Daily Planet in the Superman movies" (Wikipedia), but I felt that it doesn't really contribute to the overall theme of the article. But... I think you should keep them, anyway... because I don't think you could do it any other way. And then there is that penis joke, which also doesn't really fit with the first two section of your article, but it's incredibly tasteful and I laughed so what the hey.

I probably liked "The Junior Years" the best, because it's more satirical, and didn't spent two whole paragraphs talking about the same thing like your first section does. I liked "appearing semi-nude in publications started to empower women" and "a tradition of having topless page three girls that has continued to this day", and I don't think you need to change this section much. If I were to suggest something it would be to maybe allude to the oppression of women that is actually happening in the 1900's, but you don't really have to, anyway.

Concept: 6 I had an issue with the concept because I couldn't really tell what it was. If you hadn't already gotten this from my description of your subsections in the above, well, their themes are awfully inconsistent. It was first about the questionable quality of news in tabloids, then about a penis joke, then back to the news quality and something about women, then finally some inside joke. Some of these are good concepts by themselves, but I couldn't help feeling that there are too many elements in there, so I suggest you trim them back down, or, somehow make them interrelated to one another which is harder to do. What this article lacks is an overarching concept to connect the individual subsections together, and I would suggest you go through it and do one of these things: a. delete unconnected bits, b. connect the bits, c. de-emphasise the unconnected bits and emphasise the connected bits.
Prose and formatting: 8.5 I like your tone and writing style, as usual it's awfully good. I was able to spot 3 errors:

Lead

  • founded in 1899 (full stop)

Daily News building

  • "found it's way" - no apostrophe.
  • Is there a reason baseball is spelled "vaseball" ?
  • I also remembered seeing copy which should be copies but I couldn't find where it is.

And insert usual things about proofreading service and reading the article out loud to yourself.

Images: 7.5 Not bad. The first one looked pretty cool. The building one was slightly funny, but the rest are kind of just there to illustrate the article though. I would say that the image amount is pretty sufficient, and they match the humour style of your article so that's good. A bit lacking in humour, but I won't recommend changing them unless you change the tone of your article.
Miscellaneous: 7.5 Not averaged. Just an arbitrary scoring.
Final Score: 36.5 Well, I hope there's no underlying concept that I've missed, or I'll have spent 3 hours reviewing this article and end up looking like a douche. You are, of course, welcome on my talkpage anytime.
Reviewer: ~Scriptsiggy.JPGTelephonesig Star Starsig Kidneysig 14:01, Mar 14, 2010
Personal tools
projects