Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Dirty Harry (quick)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Padddy5 22:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
|Humour:||7.5||Good in places, but a little bit cheesy in places. I trimmed the quotes as I thought the other two were not helping, and your quote worked well with the pic I added. Hope you agree. I like the bit about the horse called Punk, and his liking for guns ;-).
The problem is that some places spoil the article a bit.
|Concept:||7.5||I loved the idea of Harry using his smell to stun his foes. I thought it a bit over the top to suggest that he actually killed them like this, but you might not agree. As you know I'm sure Eastwood also did a lot of spaghetti westerns, and I wonder if you can do something with this... Perhaps you could mention Harry's pasta loving cousin Spaghetti Dave, who subdued his foes using a series of poorly seasoned pasta dishes? Also, Eastwood did a number of moves with Clyde The Orangutan. What about Harry's brother who was a driving instructor who was obsessed with right turns. "Right hand turn Clive"! Well, Eastwood, did lots of different moves playing different characters, so I think if you write this from a point of view of his family each member having some relationship to the films you will have a lot more material to work with.
I places it's probably a bit too random, and is grasping to make the connection between the two things you are talking about. You do this in a few places, the bit about Chernobyl particularly so.
Also, the stuff where you are ranting about hippies or communists might work, but how it's written now it's not really working for me. At times it wonders off into you expressing your political views in a way which does not appear to help the funny. Attack the hippies or communists if you want, but be subtle about it, and make it fit more with the rest of the article.
"Harry killed them both in Alcatraz before going back to Cagney or Lacey's body to urinate on it while being begged by the Mayor, who Harry had kidnapped and brought to the island for his sexual pleasure, not to." -- Come on. You are wandering into childish humour here, and in a few other similar places. Keep the tone constant.
Also, as you may know, there "punks" are "punk rockers" a musical style, and political outlook. Maybe you can do something with that. In particular "Sid Viscous" of the band "The Sex Pistols" is probably the most famous Punk. Considering the pistols reference, I'm sure you can do something with that.
|Prose and formatting:||7.5||I thought that in places you could make the text flow a bit better. For example "Harry immediately joined the San Francisco Police Department at age 18, even though he lived in Mexico at the time. This was because he could knock the psychedelic coloured t-shirt off of a hippy with a bullet from 60,000 miles away."... I think this kind of text would work better if you joined the two sentences together. The "The was because" bit is not quite right for me. I think you do this in a few places elsewhere. You tend to make a statement. Then, say something about that statement. Kinda like you are setting up the joke. Then talk about it in the next sentence. Like I just did. ;-) This is not really an encyclopaedic style, and I think you can do better. Oh... YOU NEED LINKS to other articles!
"Or the same amount Hilary Clinton spends on plastic surgery every year" Come on. You really think Harry would like that kinda stuff in his article? Well do ya punk? Cut the crap. Keep it to Harry.
|Images:||6||The pics are OK, but they don't really add that much to the humour. I think I would like to see a picture of Harry's horse, and I wonder if you could find a picture which illustrates Harry's poor personal hygiene problem.|
|Final Score:||35.6||Less is often more. Read back through and be mercilessness. Harry would be. ;) Anything which is too random, a bit ranty, or not really adding anything to the article should be removed.
There is a lot more scope for new material here if you look into his other films more, and figure out how you can include them more.
It's basically a very good article, but it's spoiled in too many places as you wander into too much random, or ranting about people you don't really like. Good work though generally, but you need to take a good look at what you have here, and decide what's actually making it better, and what's not.
|Reviewer:||MrN 13:10, Nov 8|