Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/George W. Bush's Hurricane Machine (3rd review)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit George W. Bush's Hurricane Machine

Fixed up the revised version, as per Mr. Cheevers's advice. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 17:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been here a while now Guildy, I'm prepared to do it if you still want it done, but since you are on VFH with it already there seems less of a point. --ChiefjusticeDS 19:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, it's your call. If you don't want to go through the effort of reviewing something that's more than likely to make the front page, don't bother. However, if you have any outstanding points/suggestions, just give me a rundown on my talkpage. Almost as beneficial for me, without all the effort on your end. In any event, I guess I'm basically telling you to just do what you want. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll skim this one later on and let you know on your talk page if there are any issues.--ChiefjusticeDS 06:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh sod it, I'll do a proper review.--ChiefjusticeDS 17:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Humour: 8 In this review I will mostly evaluate improvements to be made following VFH, that will be more useful for everyone involved. The humour is pretty good, to take into account some of the comments from the VFH entry, the main criticisms were "Wasn't funny" and "Too blatant". I think addressing either is going to be an uphill struggle, but I will tackle the view that the article was too blatant first of all (you may or may not realise that I voted against on this basis). The main problem I found was that the character whose perspective you narrated from was too stupid to narrate, so this meant the points could be nothing if not blatant, this mattered more to some people than it did to others and I must personally apologise for not explaining my against in the VFH entry. Boomer's comment that the article was confused is spot on, in my view, jokes seemed to come from nowhere and there was little or no build up, this is understandable because of the perspective. In order to remedy this you would need to revisit the character of Jamaal and make his dialogue a bit more coherent and more simple to follow.

The questions regarding the humour were either because the person thought the jokes were bad/in bad taste, or the article just didn't make them laugh. There isn't much you can do about the latter, but pay attention to some of the more thoughtful comments that you received, Dexter111344's most of all. The racism problem you acknowledged in the debate and I will leave you to sort anything out for that. The jokes are rarely bad in this article, I personally enjoyed the ones that were coherent and the others once I figured them out, what I think you need to do is improve the way the jokes appear. You could go a long way by putting some time into reading as though you had not written the article, this can present some points to improve upon.

Concept: 9 I liked the idea behind the article, and during the VFH discussion thought that moaning about racism was a bit over-sensitive, but far be it from me to engage in such debates on the internet. Your tone with Jamaal is also pretty consistent throughout the article. The problem is that people often read these as though the comments are made by the person who is Jamaal, in this case your good self. Thus they do not see this tone as amusing but as patronising and unfunny. To rectify this you could do one of three things: Leave it because that isn't what you intended, change some of the jokes, or rewrite the character of Jamaal and thus the article. I think the last one is pretty strong and there is no need for it. As far as I'm concerned the character is amusing, if a little incoherent.
Prose and formatting: 10 Prose are fine, you got no complaints for spelling and grammar, which didn't surprise me at all. You should of course burn in hell's fire eternally because you used the non possessive its, IT SHOULD BE IT'S! But clearly I'm the only person who cares. The images are plentiful enough and the text is broken appropriately. Yes and I'm taking a mark for the apostrophe....damn my conscience... FINE!
Images: 9 The images are OK they weren't really VFH problems either, the captions are good too, however while it is a relatively amusing joke, I thought the caption on the second Jackie Robinson image could have been far more amusing had you reworded the caption rather than repeating it. Otherwise the images are fine.
Miscellaneous: 9 My overall grade of the article.
Final Score: 45 You are very unlucky with the VFH attempt, though it may be worth making some changes and then re-submitting. Good luck.
Reviewer: --ChiefjusticeDS 19:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools