Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/George Washington Carver (2nd review)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
- I owe you. Review coming up. --Nachlader 14:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
|Humour:||5||The humour does a good job sticking to a parody of his life rather than a complete abstract wind-up that a pre-adolescent could only achieve, but it is still tainted by randomosity. One prime example is the "Trivia section", it kills off the humour that the start of the article had leant on. The aforementioned section seems to summarise most of the article, however, I'm giving it a 28 out of 50, mostly because the article does have some potential and has a few funny parts.
However, it could do with a lot more work. An extra image, concentration upon the concept, organisation of the prose and professionalism of the research that may be evident within the style of writing and article presentation.
|Concept:||6||Before I read about him, I couldn't say I knew a thing about him. But after I learned a thing or two, I saw some promise for humour in this guy. Also the concept wasn't executed badly and damn near holds it's own. It could do with a little more focus though: Carver touched a lot of subjects in his life; it seems you're trying to do the same here but you're struggling to breathe life into the sections. "Patents", "Paintings", "Crazy Fundie" are three examples of topics that just seem a bit too random - I have harsh humour standards - to be funny. The section that precludes these ones is the "Rise to fame" part. Unless you can think of ways to add content and improve the humour, I'd suggest relegating the three former sections to smaller headlines - ===insert text here=== - under "Rise to fame". The same technique could be applied elsewhere even.
You stuck well with the idea that his entire life revolves around peanuts, but did little to do with botany, painting, religion and all the other stuff he stuck his nose in. Can't you at least research more into what he did and THEN give an obviously educated comedic outlook on the subjects? Otherwise, you are forced to give out random humour to make up for it. You've used the "let's bash Wikipedia" joke twice, but to be honest, once is enough. Adding him to the "Mythical Presidents Lists", however just because of his name, is inspired.
|Prose and formatting:||5||Plenty of content to play with, but the quality of such warrants improvement. You don't need to put an asterik in "bullshit", it's perfectly fine to use that word on this site. Neither do you need to capitalise it, along with "complete" and "utter". Same for "loser".
The "Carver writes a recipe book" section is the ugliest, made worse by the fact that none of the other sections can overtake it's over-nonsensical list. Some of the sections are too short to be given places on the __TOC__. Getting back to the "recipe book" section, the list is too long. If you wanted to implement the redundancy humour tool within this list, it's overshadowed by the fact that nobody'll want to read it anyway. The image of the stamp also messes the list up, I'd suggest moving that to the right. The "Quotes" section contains only one quote in spite of the pluralisation of the headline. Unless you happen to have a whole long list of quotes, it's much better to put the quotes at the top of the article rather than single one of them out for a section on it's own.
However, kudos for adding the Wikipedia template, this will enlighten readers on who the person is first and enable that the chuckles will not be in vain.
|Images:||7||Four images supplied, although an article of this length could do with another image. The first image is good
I noticed you used three images from the Wikipedia article. Why not use this picture and claim it is a"peanut-based controlled substance(s)"?.
|Final Score:||28||Hint of noticable randomness is nonetheless overwhelmed by the "straightness" of the tone by sticking to exclusive topic humour promise. I'd say it could definately be improved. Just stick with it, because I know it could even may be a potential VFH nom. However, it is far from that consideration in this current state.|
|Reviewer:||--Nachlader 14:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)|
Thanks for the review. I am currently working on taking some of the randomness out and fleshing it out a bit more.--Mnbvcxz 06:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)