Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Democratic Oligarchy
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
- I'll take this one. -- 10:06, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
|Humour:||7||Hello! Straight away I'll say that I have a bit of a soft spot for political spoof articles or articles concerning politicians and I enjoyed this one as well, the jokes are good and you have a good idea of what you want to achieve. However, my enduring feeling on finishing the article was that there was something missing, that there was a huge amount of potential built up within the article that didn't quite come to fruition. Permit me to expand, you have a really good tone for the article and I like the sarcastic style you use in bits where you say things like:
"The Tree Model is used extensively by many governments simply to baffle their citizens and justify that democratic oligarchy is the way forward, as it obviously is."
For me that style of humour is the way you want to go with this article, and you are almost there. You discuss all the negative sides of something, make it plainly obvious the way society tells us we should feel and then go the other way. It doesn't come as a surprise but it is amusing and I felt that you were trying for this throughout the article but only really pull it off on a couple of occasions. The "Manifestations" section in particular felt like a bit of a missed opportunity for me, you started it excellently but towards the middle of the section where you speak about the UN it seemed to have gone downhill and the interesting humour that you were previously using felt like it had fallen back onto a bit of cliché when you speak about the new world order. My suggestion would be that you look to expand the style of humour I attempted to describe above. I'm not suggesting that in every section there must be a subversion of my expectations preceded by a list, you demonstrate in this article that you are aware of that, what I am saying is that in places this article contains some really good bits, mixed in with some average bits, which seem worse because of their proximity to the good bits. I'd suggest trying to expand the article a little bit, consider when discussing the UN the expansion of the security council and the problems of the individual veto, consider how you can tie this back to your article's concept. I appreciate the problems in writing when you're struggling for ideas, but I really think that expansion is the key here, more topics will give you more ways to apply your humour. Another idea could be to compare Democratic Oligarchy to existing forms of government, indicating the drawbacks, for example: Democracy - Delays while everybody gets listened to, Authoritarianism - Bad press and a tendency towards bloody rebellions, Oligarchical Collectivism - too complicated, Anarchy - Too anarchic etc. While I wouldn't suggest just putting in a list explaining the above, it gives you a different set of ideas to work with.
As I started writing this review I was trying to work out which other article your humour put me in mind of and it has just struck me now, Thanks for buying our product! Now, fuck you. This is one of my absolute favourite articles because it does the tone you seem to be going for so well. Thanks for buying a product is describing a "fictional" corporate principle, you are describing a "fictional" form of government. Have a read of Thanks for buying our product (it's superb) and consider how the author derives the humour from the descriptions. My reading of it derives the humour partly from familiarity of the reader with anti-theft devices and slightly irritating packaging, but also from adding an extra dimension giving the mindset of those who introduce such ideas, what the idea says and what they hope the results will be. I feel that using this article as a basis to expand your work could only be beneficial and I would urge you to consider it.
My final point is that your description of the Tree Model is not particularly easy to follow, especially given your description and the image you provide, where the picture of the large number of people actually appears to be on the widest part of the tree. Consider simplifying your explanations for the ease of the permanently baffled, like me, your pre-amble gives a decent amount of text about democratic oligarchy, but consider spacing things out a bit more and perhaps an example of democratic oligarchy in practice.
Don't feel that the humour in your article is bad, it most certainly is not, I just feel that it could be so much better if you increase the content and give yourself more opportunities to make the jokes.
|Concept:||7||I've made most of my comments about this already, so I won't go over the same ground. If I didn't make it plain already I like the concept and I like the tone you have chosen to tackle the idea. The only suggestion I would offer is to consider the viewpoint the article will take, the satirical encyclopaedic style is perfectly good for this one but you could equally consider writing from the viewpoint of someone living at the "top of the tree" as it were instead. It's all about which route will give you the most ideas. I like the style you have used thus far and think the best option would be to continue with that at this point, but always consider other options as you write. It's never too late to change that aspect of an article.|
|Prose and formatting:||8||Your prose is absolutely fine I will, as always, recommend that you proofread this carefully to make sure that there are no lingering errors in the spelling and grammar. I appreciate that writing extensively leaves some people in no mood for proofreading as my spelling and grammar quality decreases in direct proportion to the amount I write. If proofreading isn't your thing feel free to ask someone else to take a look. I think that you could use another image, at the article's current length two is the most I'd recommend, but I think another small image would be beneficial. It's very borderline at the moment; I'd add another one, you may wish to wait until there's more text. This isn't a criticism, more an observation, it's really up to you.|
|Images:||5||The image is probably the weakest part of the article for me, it's good that you've linked it to the text, but therein lies the main problem. As the image is linked very closely to the text and you actively use it to explain a concept it needs to be of a high quality. I'm not expecting you to become an expert at photoshop for the purposes of this article, but it needs to be a bit clearer. I mentioned a confusion I had with it above. Have a Google for some other images or consider simplifying the image by removing the public to the very bottom of the tree. Either way I do think that this needs a bit of work, it looks fairly scruffy and gives the wrong impression of your article when someone arrives. Alternatively you could consider making the image about something else entirely and expanding the section explaining the model to do the work your image is currently doing. Also consider what your caption could be used to do, currently it just explains the image, which is fine, but you could use it to make a separate joke, please consider this if you do re-work the image as it is a real source of humour potential.|
|Miscellaneous:||7||My overall grade of the article.|
|Final Score:||34||When you get down to it this is a solid effort and you have done well with it. What you need to do now is work at improving your humour. Take advice from the article I linked in the humour section and consider ways that you can increase the number of jokes. Improving your article isn't simply a matter of making more jokes, but rather giving yourself the opportunity to make them and for me that will have to come with expansion; a few more sections, an extra image and you will be on the way to something very special here. If you have any questions or comments about the above then make free with them on my talk page. Remember that there is always value in other opinions and this review should not be taken as gospel, it's just what I think. Best of luck making your changes.
Oh by the way, sorry you had to wait so long!
|Reviewer:||--11:38, March 26, 2014 (UTC)|