Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/HowTo:Survive Being Buried Alive (2nd review)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
I've improved and slightly rewritten since the last review. My main concerns are if it's too random, if the humour works, and if the story is coherent. Do the content set up the final joke well? Does the article match what one might imagine an article on this subject? -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 23:44, Feb. 6, 2010
- I know I'm a noob, but I'll still try. If you don't like it, you can re-submit for another one, anyway. I'll start now, and will be done by tomorrow. 01:20, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
|Humour:||4||Yes, a low rating is discouraging. But most of the story didn't really have the feeling of a satire story. The article cleans up its act in the end, but most of the beginning fell flat.
My first petty complaint: the sentences "Is this a coffin? GASP! It is a coffin!" I would recommend "What is this, a coffin?" and then the next one. It may seem very, very tiny, but it makes the whole paragraph flow better. I would also advise you get rid of the yadda yadda yadda thing in the section "Your memory begins to recover", maybe just get rid of the beginning of the last sentence altogether, or maybe replacing it with something funnier. Another thing about that section, there is potential for humor there, no offense, but there are really no laughs there. This section really does need to have some laughs added. Now, a section by section:
The humor here was generally really good. The fourth "citation" note is a little too random, it didn't really seem to apply to the sentence it was added to. I'm not saying you scrap it entirely, I'd just recommend moving it to a new sentence. Actually, the sentence right afterward would work well. The rest of the humor was fine, the irony was good, etc etc.
The leading along to the punchline was fine, but even though swearing doesn't always make a good joke, I think replacing heck with hell would help the punch of the joke. Another super-petty issue, but I think it would really be beneficial. Other than that, there are no other complaints for this section.
Being in-jokey is generally frowned upon, but linking to a wizard did it would have given me a laugh. This is like the "Memory" section, good for the storyline, but there doesn't seem to be a real punchline here. I would recommend adding satirizing Harry Houdini further, since you mentioned it.
The whole idea here is a little strange, but it manages. This section remains pretty strong, and there really are no recommendations I can give, I suppose.
Overall a strong section, it got a chuckle or two. Good.
The same as above. The article is getting better. The exact same applies for the next section.
Easily one of the strongest sections. The Jewish thing got a chuckle, I liked both of the "citations" here, actually.
There wasn't much of a punch line here actually, but I don't think it really needed it. There were jokes, so it gets off fine.
Haha, I wasn't expecting that, well done. I more expected Elizabeth to kill the story person. Anyway, the humor here is the best. And thus ends my very long-winded humor thoughts.
|Concept:||6||The concept itself isn't bad, but again, the execution isn't great in all places. In certain parts of the article, the execution was great, in others, not so much. In all, there isn't a large amount of satire around. This doesn't mean the article is un-funny, it's just funny in a different way. I recognize the fact that this isn't exactly an easy subject to satire, but there are parts where I felt potential was not taken advantage of. See the humor section for specific examples and suggestions.|
|Prose and formatting:||8||There are a few grammar errors here and there, but they are fixable and minor. I would suggest putting it through Microsoft Word spellcheck or the proofreading service, which I would like to remind you, I am a member of. Either myself or someone else of that service could fix any problems in the area. There is a good reason why it is not in basic encyclopedic format, so the formatting for this nature of an article is fine. There's only one problem I had with prose, and that was that the paragraphs were disconnected a lot. Bigger is not better, but neither is smaller. It's fine when you have a change, but sometimes it felt like you transferred to a new line without much reason.|
|Images:||7||The images looked fine, so they weren't eyesores or anything. The first thing that bugged me: Your "ba dum cha!" drum guy didn't move, so you need to fix that up. The captions were mostly alright, pretty average. I liked the third and fourth images the most. I don't really understand the first and the fifth images. In the first one, what is that an image of? The caption could have worked for a good joke, but it appears to just be a man riding a horse. Why does nothing good come out of riding a horse at night? Your image doesn't clarify that to me. For the fifth, that's obviously a cell phone (I think), so what is the point of the word "also"? I don't know if that was an accident, or I'm missing the joke, or if it's some sort of irony.|
|Final Score:||31.3||I know this review seems sort of mean and discouraging, but I'm really only trying to help. I did laugh at least, and I do like this article. It needs some tweaking and fixing, but it can easily evolve into a good article. With HTBFANJS at your side, I wish you good luck with any changes.|
|Reviewer:||07:58, February 7, 2010 (UTC)|
Wow, this is not what I expected at all. You've been here, what, 23 days? I was having articles deleted and getting banned my first month here!
Here're are my responses:
- Another thing about that section, there is potential for humor there, no offense, but there are really no laughs there. This section really does need to have some laughs added.
The opening was kinda of the article's straight man before the humour comes in.
- I'd just recommend moving it to a new sentence.
- I think replacing heck with hell would help the punch of the joke.
What about "Whoops!"? I'd rather spare the swearing for times when the author is very frustrated.
- Idea#2: Perform Magic:
I always felt the potential to this one wasn't stretched out enough. I'd rather not make a reference to "a wizard did it", unless I happened to mention a wizard. As you might notice, the article is full of novelty links.
- I would recommend adding satirizing Harry Houdini further
Again, a very good idea. Houdini is well-known for the coffin trick, so that would fit in well with the article.
- Idea#4: Telepathy: Overall a strong section, it got a chuckle or two. Good.
I'm surprised. I considered this the weakest one. Not a lot of humour there.
- The ending: Haha, I wasn't expecting that, well done. I more expected Elizabeth to kill the story person. Anyway, the humor here is the best. And thus ends my very long-winded humor thoughts.
If the end worked, then I'm satisfied. :D
Although do you think Elizabeth being in on the whole thing with the author would be a nice twist?
- The first thing that bugged me: Your "ba dum cha!" drum guy didn't move, so you need to fix that up.
Dammit!! Small gif = FAIL
As for the guy riding the horse, that's Paul Revere. He's famous for a midnight ride during the American Revolution to warn the people of a British attack. Since it's implied the story takes place in the England of yesteryear, the joke is the "no good thing" was the foundation of the United States. I don't know what nationally you are, but that might be the reason you didn't get the historical reference.
- I know this review seems sort of mean and discouraging, but I'm really only trying to help.
Mean? Not at all! This is exactly what I wanted. A detailed review with strong constructive criticism. Keep up the good work and these golden showers will come pouring in on your head. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 19:34, Feb. 7, 2010
- That's Paul Revere? Fail. Sorry, I must really suck or something.
Yeah, it probably would. The end is a "smack in the face" type thing, and that would probably work to enhance the effect. As for the swearing thing: Yeah, I just think some kind of exclamatory would work.22:44, February 7, 2010 (UTC)