Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Frankie the Pig
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Guiseppe 21:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
|Humour:||1||Is there any? Really? What we have, as far as I can tell, is just train of thought with little thought as to what is actually funny. It's not (so far as I can tell?) based on anything real, nor are there any identifiable jokes, satire, punchlines, and so on. Anyway, to try and go in depth a bit:
|Concept:||1||See above. I've tried, I really have, but I can't see a point to the article at all. It's not satire, because there's no satire. It's not parody, because it doesn't appear to parody anything. It's not a ranty attempt to capture the zeitgeist, because there's nothing ranty and zeitgeisty about it.
Working through the CM test:
|Prose and formatting:||3||its Really quite difficult. "To Read Badly" punctuated train of thought particularly when it makes not a blind bit of sense to anyone the layout doesn't seem to make you seem to jump around randomly where ws I oh yeah the layout is a bit haphazard try using some line breaks...
...to break up the prose and make it a little easier for the poor soul wading through it to try and get the joke. You do just about get the idea of headings right. But it's ridden with cliches and oh wait I think I just spotted a joke. No sorry, was just a trick of the light. Anyway, I'm sure you get the message.
|Images:||3||Well, you have an image. That's a start. And it sort of causes a twitch of the muscles in the face when you read it and decide that it has absolutely no relevance to the articles, so that's a plus, in a perverse kind of way I suppose. And it's quite witty that the picture is, actually of the president of Uganda.|
|Miscellaneous:||2||Well, I've averaged the marks, but that's not saying much. Personally, I see no redeeming value and certainly no evidence of any humour in the article. Maybe someone else will? I don't know. I'd suggest it should be VFD, and my score I think reflects that.|
|Final Score:||10||See above! I don't think this has any redeeming value, and I don't see how as it stands it is anything other than a vanity project. It's already marked as NRV, so I'm sure it will be removed in good time.|
|Reviewer:||--Gladstone 17:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)|