Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/I Am the Walrus

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit I Am the Walrus

Thank you for reading!  –  FuhQ.gifFuhQ  ZDsig.gifZDsig Sheenicon.gif (ooh!) (aah!) ...·º•ø®@» LEG CUN GUN DUN 07:12, 17 January 2010

I feel I can review this satisfactorily. Give me a day (perhaps a little more... we'll see). --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 22:51, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Humour: 6 Hey Zana, hope you're well. You have a pretty good article here, and I wouldn't say there was much that needs revising. In terms of humour and prose it starts nicely, however I feel the main problem is that it veers off a little in the middle. Some of the humour towards the end seems random and the prose becomes muddled. What I would recommend is strengthening the weaker parts with more satire of Beatles fandom, which is something you do very well already in some parts of the article. I think there's room for more - I will elaborate on this later. Anyway, let me take you through bit by bit...

As for the opening, I feel both the quotes could probably be moved into the prose, somewhere they could be explained better. The "expert texpert" one will likely confuse people who haven't heard the song, and the one that simply says "I am the eggman," well... I'm not sure what the point of that is. I thought it might be to highlight the confusion as to how John can be both the eggman and the walrus. If this is the case move it into the prose and make the joke clearer.

One of the jokes I liked in the opening was you making out that the strange events described in the song are everyday occurences. Although a good joke, you rush through it. Clear it up by stating outright that these are well-known facets of life that we can all identify with, and how that's part of the appeal of the song (you do say this later, at the end of the paragraph, but I feel it should come first to introduce the idea).

I also really liked the idea of replacing all pictures of walruses with pictures of Lennon, but I think for the idea to work you have to reign back the nonsense. Get rid of the fact that the pictures in question are of Lennon nude, which is too random, and maybe suggest instead that one interpretation of the song is that Lennon is trying to assert himself as some kind of walrus blueprint (the walrus, as he says), and this has sparked the replacement of traditional walrus images by insanely devoted Beatles fans. You could also do with an accompanying image here.

Your article starts to lose its way a little around the I'm Confused section. The first bit is good, but then it loses focus in the second paragraph. You have some good jokes (such as the humpty dumpty bit) but you need to explain the "Paul is dead" hoax better. For instance, is your article suggeting it's true? I feel it is too big a subject to properly explain here, fortunately however there is already an awesome article on the subject, so maybe you could link to that and briefly summarise.

Other notes on this section: lose the Norwegian Wood reference, that was a bit silly, as was the alleged translation into archaic Scandinavian. If you're going to use the Paul is dead thing, you need a lot more focus - explain how one of the key theories is that walruses are equated with death, and that some believe Paul to have died. You should probably also quote Glass Onion so we know what you mean when you say the walrus was Paul.

On the Pornographic Priestess: every reference to her seems unfocussed and irrelevant. If you choose to keep it in, I recommend tidying it up and working it in as another clue in the case, rather than a random divergence (Which is how it seems now).

Finally, there is a joke at the end that I really liked. I'm referring to the closing quote from Lennon. Seeing this made me realise that there is a lot more potential to be reached here if you satirise the Beatles fans themselves. Those petty people who obsessively over-analyse the lyrics and behaviour of the band, despite it's obvious lack of meaning. Of course, you already do this, but I think you could get a lot more jokes in here if you poke fun at these sort of people. The Paul is dead article does this very well, and if you haven't already read it I recommend you do. For example, you could have the narrator develop into one of these obsessive fans, or simply encounter them on her/his quest to find out who is the walrus.

Concept: 8 No problems with your concept really, like I say, I think you should just be a bit more relentless when it comes to mocking the obsessive Beatles fans who worry about stuff like this. But yeah, it's all fine here.
Prose and formatting: 6 Generally, your spelling and grammar is fine, as is your formatting. I would say that prose is probably your biggest problem, but it is one that can be easily fixed.

There are a fair few cumbersome sentences throughout. In the opening for instance: "from the young tranny disrobing to the smiling pigs, I am the Walrus was born", needs tidying up. When I first read it I thought the tranny was disrobing himself to the smiling pigs (as amusing as that sounds it's not what happens in the song). Make it clear that these are two separate characters. Also, the "I am the walrus was born" bit should probably be in a separate sentence, maybe you could say: "and thus, I am the walrus was born" (or words to that effect).

The So John isn't the Walrus section is good overall, however the part where you talk about dreaming of 'walri' could also do with clearing up. You might want to start by saying that this is "according to dream interpretation" or something, just so readers know what you mean when you equate walrus-dreams with "awkward self expressions and emotions". And while we're at it, what exactly do you mean by "awkward self expressions and emotions"?

In the Walrus and Carpenter section, you rush through without really explaining who the walrus in the story is. Even those who have read it will likely find this confusing, think about those poor souls who haven't. Nothing major, just introduce the character before you start using him in the article. On top of that, this whole section is written in a confusing way. What I get is:

  • John is only the walrus 'metaphorically' but can still be the eggman 'literally'. You need to make this clearer (although without losing the jokes you have in there already, which I liked).
  • But then you make out that people still wonder who the walrus is, despite asserting previously that John was a walrus metaphorically. This seems confusing, you need to make it clear you're now talking about the 'literal' walrus (if that's indeed what you're doing).

I feel you could go further with the Are you the walrus? section. I agree that Paul isn't recognisable as the walrus on the album cover, but if I were writing the article I would alo go so far as to say that you can't even tell if it's a Beatle, or a man... for example, you could end this on the chilling line: it could even be you.

Images: 6 Fig1a of the Paulrus shouldn't be mentioned in the Are you the Walrus section. When you say "see fig1a" you don't want people scrolling to a later part of the article to find it. It took me ages to realise this was the pic I was looking for (only to see that it was McCartney and not Lennon, as promised).

A pic of the magical mystery tour album could help in this section, so users can see for themselves this 'unidentifiable beatle'. An illustration of walruses being replaced with images of Lennon might also be nice.

Overall I would say get rid of the Jane Asher one too, replace it with something funnier. Perhaps something else that satirises obsessive Beatles fandom?

Miscellaneous: 6.5 Averaged.
Final Score: 32.5 Right, so like I've said, clear up some of the messy prose, try and squeeze some more jokes out of your subject matter, and maybe lose/fix the pornographic priestess stuff at the end and you should be alright. They're all quite small, easily-fixable problems, overall I found it an enjoyable read. Don't be disenhearted if you find some of the scores to be a bit low, I usually find numbers are incapable of expressing the true quality of an article anyway. And I know that in the past you've worked hard to make imperfect articles featureable, so I am confident that whatever you do with this it will end up a great piece. If you have any further questions or anything, get back to me.
Reviewer: --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 17:43, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools