Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Guide to a Postmodernist Art Exhibition

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Guide to a Postmodernist Art Exhibition

The article formerly known as "Postmodern Art" - which makes this it's second review, but please do this independent of reading the previous review if you can. The more constructive and detailed your feedback can be the better. Pup t 05:07, 9/08/2009

I'm here.--ChiefjusticeDS 17:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Humour: 7 Your humour is pleasingly subtle and rewards concentration on the article. I think the problem that you are running into here is that each section relies upon the last section for the big joke of the article and relies on over explaining something relatively mundane for humour. The problem occurs in that these are the only sources of humour, so before a reader reaches the final section you are just relying on your descriptions to sell the article to them. If you put this on VFH you will receive hundreds of comments saying that there wasn't enough humour or that the person didn't get the article. I think you should try to find a couple more sources of humour that can run throughout the article, just to make it easier for those with short attention spans to make it to the final paragraph. Coherence is also a bar to your humour, as I read the descriptions I found myself having to reread parts to make sure I understood, you have a tendency to race off into the description and never really explain what you are saying, incoherence is a large bar to humour and you have to make sure you set a scene for each section. Imagine the reader didn't have the image to refer to, you would have to explain what was going on, try to write and then let the image compliment, rather than speak for you. I see what you are doing with the humour and I enjoyed the article as I read it, I just think you can do better than you have.
Concept: 9 I like your concept and your execution is superb. My only complaint is that you don't set the tone up very well. The reader is left to decide who is speaking for themselves. Though this is a problem, it doesn't hurt the tone as a whole, but it does lead me to ask where on earth are we? Who on earth is speaking? The article will just feel much more secure if you ground it to real life, because God himself could be pitching this one to me and I wouldn't know. Give the article some grounding and it will be much improved.
Prose and formatting: 9 Again you have done pretty well here and the prose are without many errors, do watch out for comma splicing though. Not essential really, because I will eat my hat the day someone votes against on VFH saying "Well the article was brilliant but the poor use of comma's ruined it for me." But it would please me if you would fix it and obviously that is the most important thing. My only objection is the occasional loss of focus in some of the prose, where you seem to wander from your point, or the point is unclear. These problems are small and can be easily fixed, just be sure that you do, again they don't really have an adverse effect on the article but they were too obvious for my liking. Otherwise your formatting is absolutely fine.
Images: 10 Fantastic use of images and captioning in this article and as much as we could reasonably ask for. You are creative and you use the images very intelligently and let them be an excellent joke alone, and a brilliant one when combined with the text. Good work.
Miscellaneous: 9 My overall grade of the article
Final Score: 44 An excellent article with a couple of problems still to sort. Once you sort these you will have a pretty solid article. Your writing is intelligent and is well up to your usual standard. Any comments and queries should be directed to writer services (yes, that is what I'm now calling my talk page). Good luck with any edits.
Reviewer: --ChiefjusticeDS 19:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools