Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Heat Magazine
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
- Oh, gees, I'm so sorry, man, but I really think it'd be better if someone more experienced did it; I really don't think I know enough. So sorry, man. BlueYonder - CONTACT
|Humour:||5||It's okay, but most of the humour, although effective at parts, appears to lean towards random humour. That's not to say such a humour tool is unwelcome in comedic matters, it's just that random humour can be associated with almost every topic ever, and therefore detracts on the exclusivity of independent humour on the actual topic's behalf, in this case Heat Magazine.
And then the random humour goes bad and starts killing people. The "triva" section lets the whole thing down. The "controversy" section goes well until the last line, which is a crown of randomness, along with the "references" part. Also the poem just distracts my mind from what I thought the article was supposed to be about. Random humour is random, it is very hard to make it funny yet linked the with a specific topic. Most of the time, it'll come out unfunny in the wash.
But it does have some good parts and has the capacity to do much, much better. The "controversy" section about Peter André is good, as is "features" and "scoops". I have the feeling I'm being generous, but I'll give this a 5.
|Concept:||6||The concept could be better, a reversal plot in the article could've been used, for example. The article talks about the ridiculousness of modern popular culture magazines (such as this), noting the usual overhyping of celebrity stories and the like. It's somewhat painfully close, as that part jokes about how the article could've been presented: in a magazine format.
In Uncyclopedia, there are website articles done in the style of a website browser, and this has a comic effect with the reversal humour tool notified in the HTBFANJS guide (although of course you don't need to depend on the guide). The same idea could've been implemented here. It would be harder, what with an internet browser having just one page and a magazine has over 30 pages, but if each section was detailed as a seperate page and the headlines put out as... well, headlines, but in a Heat Magazine sense of overhyping the subject. Use caps lock, exclaimation marks, vibrant colours, whatever and the effect will be there. I don't know if you know about Wiki formatting, but I don't, so you'd have to ask someone else.
|Prose and formatting:||7||Not many bad points to be made here, the prose is consistent via the persistent content. The formatting, of what there is of it, is okay, although a "Wikipedia also has this article" template would do well to provide a reference, in my opinion. It is free of typos, apart from "The shocl dissolution", which is good nonetheless. The style of writing in the article feels slightly wanting, but it is overly sufficient for an Uncyclopedia article. Not much I can suggest.|
|Images:||7||Four images supplied, which is ample enough for an article of this length, although not too much to shout about is in the images themselves. The edited magazine cover was a good addition, as it is a literal image of the topic in question. The second image is a graph, which I usually find quite awkward in Uncyclopedia, of the popularity of Russell Brand. The caption of the aforementioned image doesn't do justice as to relevance of the image to the article, but that's just how I feel. Graphs also don't really come off as images like a picture of a city skyline or whatever, something vivid, but it has a place somewhat. The picture of the chav gets my random alarm tingling, but it feels somewhat significent, and the less said about the, otherwise best image of the article, picture of Peter André, the better. At least the images finished on a good note.
I would suggest using pictures of celebrity scandals (coke queens climbing out of cars or something) and then twisting the story with a caption. Maybe "I'm just off to powder my nose" alongside an image of a female celebrity getting into a car rather drunkenly. That sort of thing.
|Final Score:||31.25||It's okay, getting there anyway, but the article is in need of an improvement. The concept is just about visible in the thick mists of random sections and one-liners, and an edit a list of suggestions is all it needs to get the concept out into the open and produce the humourous article it could so potentially spawn.|
|Reviewer:||--Nachlader 10:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)|