Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Eddie Izzard

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Hey, please have a look at the Eddie Izzard article I revamped from it's original shambles.

edit Eddie Izzard

UncycloSte 04:04, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

UUtea A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article
is being reviewed by:
UU - natter UU Manhole
(While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead).
(Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole).

I got you covered. --UU - natter UU Manhole 17:29, Oct 1

Humour: 4 Hum, that's not a massive score to start with, is it? But don't get discouraged, keep reading, and I'll explain a few things about how to put that right.

First of all, let's look at the quotes - there are too many of them, particularly as your opening. If you must have quotes, one is good, two at most, don't go for too many more, that just clutters things up. So I'd maybe stick to the first one, which is probably the best, and lose the rest.

Next, coherence. I don't necessarily mean just the ability to write sentences in English, I'm talking more about the ability to make the article flow from one section to another, as opposed to feeling like it's a collection of almost unrelated ideas that you're jumping between when you get bored of one. Eddie himself is a master of this - although much of his material is absurd, he manages to get it to hang together in a way that at least seems coherent until you go home and start to think about it a bit more. So spend some time trying to make sure all of your article works together, it's worth it.

Now we'll move on to some things that we see far too much of around here, and don't really help the article:

  • Name dropping (especially Mr flamin' T, who is very over-used). Just putting the names of random well-known people or characters in doesn't add funny, and often it actually detracts from it
  • Too many sex jokes - yes, we're all adults here, or at least old enough to use the computer without our parents watching, but jokes about schlong size, being gay, masturbation etc, unless they're part of an overall theme, get wearisome quite quickly.
  • Using his material - we know the guy is funny, but having you repeat some of his stuff to us doesn't work in the same way. If I want Eddie material, I'll watch him on Youtube or DVD or something. Write an article about him, don't regurgitate his stuff.
  • Absurdly large numbers - he's had 7 million men, has he? Naw. Two points here, one being that a little exaggeration is funny, a colossal over-exaggeration of that magnitude just looks daft; the other is that this entire section doesn't add much (see the earlier point about sex jokes.

Finally, a couple of tips:

  1. Read HTBFANJS. Again, if you have already. It's got some good points about writing a good comedy article, and regularly helps some of our best authors.
  2. Get a good central concept - see next section. If you get a good enough concept, articles almost write themselves.
  3. Look through some of our featured articles, paying close attention to the ones on people. Buster Keaton is a good example - it started out like this, with too many quotes, too many sex jokes and so forth, then got edited, taking those things into account, and ended up getting featured. Don't look at them to copy or steal their ideas, just try to get a feel for how other people have approached this situation, and see if it gives you any ideas to improve this.
  4. And don't get discouraged, everyone starts somewhere. My first article, for example, was much worse than this (it has since been deleted). It's only by keeping going that we can improve.
Concept: 3 Here's the main problem: you don't really have a central idea, you're just writing down whatever you can think of that you think is funny about Eddie, which is the wrong way to start. You start by figuring out what the article is about - what the main idea of it is. You could choose to do a standard biography; try to write an article about him in the style of his delivery (could be tricky, but would be ace if you could pull it off); try to establish why he has such a fondness for jam (and don't forget, to our American readers, jam is "jelly" - you might be able to get a joke out of that somewhere); focus on where he gets his ideas from or whatever - get a strong idea first, and then try to write about it: you should find that the article is easier to write, and also works better.
Prose and formatting: 6 Not really any typos to worry about, the formatting's OK, but there's maybe one or two too many red links, and it looks a bit sparse (but that's really for the next section to cover). Not bad.
Images: 5 Two. They're relevant in that they're of him, but not in that they don't relate to any of the text. Can you find a way to make them more closely work with your concept? That would help. Also, you probably need one more for this size article. I have a large size screen - if I can fit any part of an article on it without seeing at least part of an image, you probably need another. I'd also suggest right aligning that second one and making it bigger.
Miscellaneous: 4.5 Averaged
Final Score: 22.5 You were probably hoping for a better score, but don't be too downhearted - that's not too far off an average score from me, and I think that with some more work, you can really bring this up to speed. The trick is not to get discouraged by the score, but to see if you can see where I'm coming from. You may not agree with all the points (it is, after all, nothing but a subjective opinion), and that's your right, but I've been on this site a few years now, and I'm trying to give you an idea of what might help this article do well on this site. So I hope you at least think about what I've said - I love Eddie Izzard, and I think we do need a good article on him. I hope you can be the one to provide it!

Don't forget, this is only my opinion, others are available. and good luck!

Reviewer: --UU - natter UU Manhole 18:17, Oct 1
Personal tools