Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 22:29, July 31, 2010 by Hyperbole (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives

Review request submitted on behalf of DragonLizardJareth.

ChiefjusticePS3 21:29, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Masaru

PEE REVIEW IN PROGRESS

Hyperbole is engaged in the dual processes
of giving you his opinion and pretending you care.
Humour: 1 Hi, DragonLizardJareth. I can see that you really, really want to write a featured article on Uncyclopedia. I can see that you're encouraged by what you've written here, and I can see that you're a fairly decent writer.

Those are all really encouraging things to see in a new Uncyclopedian, and I'm glad to have you here.

The bad news, Jareth, is this doesn't work at all. This article is probably going to end up on VFD, where it will probably be deleted. (Of course, nothing ever gets completely deleted around here, and it'll probably end up sitting in your userspace, where we allow even the worst articles to be).

Here's some things you need to understand about Uncyclopedia.

1. We hate lists.

Most Uncyclopedians hate lists. Back in 2005, there were lists all over the site, and they all looked the same, and they were all horribly unfunny. A typical list looked like this:

Olive Oyl is a slut who sucks Popeye's cock. Here is a list of people who Olive Oyl has fucked:
  • Batman
  • Sam-I-Am
  • Chuck Norris
  • Oscar Wilde
  • Mr. T
  • The dog from Duck Hunt
(then it would go on for like seven more pages).

We hate that. We don't want to read lists of random pop-culture figures. They aren't funny. Unfortunately, your article is... one big list of eighteen random pop-culture figures. It's called "Ten Most Wanted," and it doesn't even stop at ten - it has to go to eighteen.

2. We hate the universe where all pop-culture figures are real.

Every article on Uncyclopedia can be said to be written in a certain universe. For example, Sarah Plain and Tall is written in the real universe. Japanese High Schools is written in a universe where anime videos are real. The Bourne Pottery Class is written in a universe where Hollywood sequels are even more formulaic and pathetic than they are in ours. Get it?

The funniest articles exist either in the real universe, or in one where juuust one thing is tweaked a little bit.

The worst articles, bar none, are in that fucking universe where every pop-culture figure actually exists. We hate that universe. It's maddeningly incoherent and unfunny. If The Bourne Pottery Class featured Luigi jumping out of nowhere and hopping on Jason Bourne's head, or Elmo jumping on set to yell that he loves his goldfish and his crayon too, it would have ruined the article. It would have taken the article from one of the best of 2009 to something for the trash heap.

Stay the hell out of that universe.

3. We're very uncomfortable about featuring inside jokes.

Every community is going to make fun of itself, and there are a lot of inside jokes on Uncyclopedia - but an inside joke has to be pretty hilarious to make it to feature. It's got to really be spectacularly funny. Putting inside jokes into an article often completely ruins it.

Saying that a specific Uncyclopedian is a "douchebag bastard prick" who rapes children isn't even slightly funny. It's a good way to get banned, but it isn't funny. Some people are going to be pissed off at you for that kind of attack; anyone who isn't pissed off is going to be facepalming at what is perhaps the most pathetic attempt at satire ever. Delete that section immediately. It fails.

4. We've had enough sexual perversion to last a lifetime.

We've read a thousand articles that simply say that the subject of the article rapes goats or has gay sex or sucks his own cock or is a dirty hooker. It wasn't funny to begin with, and it sure as hell isn't funny the thousand-and-first time around.

It's true that we will occasionally feature an article about sexual perversion, like Dear Mr. Hornet, if it's very subtly done. But if you say that Jack Sparrow fucked a million young girls, that's not headed for the front page. That's headed for the dumpster.

5. It is practically impossible to satirize satire.

I have never, once, in my lifetime, seen an article that even mentions Steven Colbert or Family Guy go to feature, or even be slightly funny. Those are both multi-million dollar shows written by teams of professional writers - some of the funniest people in the United States, who have nothing to do but sit around all day and think up jokes.

When you bring them up, all you do is remind people that they're funnier than you are.

Bottom line, Jareth? This article is offensively unfunny to anyone who's spent any real time on Uncyclopedia. It breaks every one of these rules so boldly that it actually stands out, to a lot of us, as one of the worst articles ever written.

But, I don't blame you. It's your first full-length article: how could you possibly be expected to know what we hate around here? A lot of really good Uncyclopedians get a first review like this: I know I did.

Concept: 1 For the reasons I explained, a list of pop-culture icons and why they're criminals is, in fact, the worst possible concept you could come up with for an Uncyclopedia article.

If you wanted to satirize the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list, you'd probably have to actually satirize the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list to make it work - populate it with drug runners and terrorists, and then find some satirical "hook". Maybe something like the fact that their descriptions make it obvious that they're all preposterously easy to find, and thus the list makes the FBI look stupid. Something like that. I don't know; obivously, this isn't that article.

Prose and formatting: 7 Your prose is very good. You're totally capable of writing a grammatically correct, readable, coherent sentence. That's a really encouraging sign.

Your formatting is also good. The table actually looks great. I think the article could have used a picture up on top, but that's a matter of opinion.

Images: 7 The images are also good. They're representative of their subject, they're sized well - no complaints here.
Miscellaneous: 1 But, despite nicely-written prose, cool formatting, and appropriate pictures, the article is a complete disaster.
Final Score: 17 Like I said, this article is a guaranteed candidate for deletion. You should save yourself that embarrassment by moving it to your userspace. Just click "move" on that page and move it to User:DragonLizardJareth/FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. It can stay there forever, although it won't really be officially considered part of Uncyclopedia.

Then, Jareth, I'd really like you to write a new article. I know that you can write well. I know that you can make a page look great. If you take my advice, and stay out of the pop-culture world, and avoid everything I told you to avoid, I think you can write a feature.

The easiest way is to just write what you know. What do you enjoy? What interests you? And what's ridiculous about those things? Write an article about them, and poke fun at them. That's probably the best way to get started around here.

You might also want to read Uncyclopedia's humor manual, HTBFANJS. It has a lot of helpful advice.

Good luck!!

Reviewer: Tinymasaru.gifpillow talk 22:24, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects