Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Is the bear a Catholic?

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 13:58, February 27, 2009 by Projectmayhem666 (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Is the bear a Catholic?

gave this one a rescue from VFD and a total rewrite. is it adequate, and how can i improve? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Flyby: I think the language gets to "difficult" at times (i.e. too many big words and long sentences), and it might need some more jokes. Also, I would advise keeping this one fairly short-med length. If it gets too long, it might come across as saga-y or rambling. --Mnb'z 18:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Humour: 4 Concept is a ok, I will explain below, but your pro-concurrent language in some of your sentences is just frankly annoying, only cpt Jack Sparrow can talk like that get away with it, and you my friend, are not a pirate, savvy? I'm not saying don't use this method, just don't over use it like in the second paragraph, you use too many double negatives and I wanted to stab you for doing so, it doesn't increase the humour at all merely fits in with your graceful language that I believe you're going for. " Pope, in all likelihood, shits in a woodland setting extremely infrequently" could have been written as "The Pope, probably doesn't shit in the woods that often" and you'd get the same result.

You use of large over-bearing words doesn't work at all, most people are stupid and unlike me don't know what they mean, use them by all means but you just sound like some upperclass toff trying to be funny, this is not what you want because no-one on this site is upperclass, no-one. Not even me.

In section 3 the humour has seemingly stopped, it reads more like someone philosophising about the concept, there is very little in here that could be considered humour, I would suggest taking out a huge chunk of this section and then deleting what you have left and adding something else that is funny. Try to perceive what you, yourself, as a reader, would find funny. Perhaps try to get rid of the whole question of the question aspect, you used it at the end of section 2, there is no reason to repeat it all through-out secion 3.

In section 4 "as he had just three weeks previous been mauled by the very bear he had been studying, rendering him irrevocably and irreversibly dead. " Is funny it made me laugh, thus is good. The rest reads like an encyclopediac documentary, you do not want this -slaps- no you do not, this is not the style you're looking for. If you wanted to write an encyclopedia entry you'd have signed up to Wikipedia. You've started telling us a story about a man studying a bear, no jokes, no puns, no comedy except for the afforementioned line. So the section is not funny, make him a KGB ex Russian style character, have a russian reversal on the conclusion, just make it bloody funny.


Finally - Add a conclusion, some crazy Russians opinion is not really anything to go on, but before you do, get some funny ideas.

Concept: 5 Ordinarily I would stick to my guns and say every concept is a good concept, but not in this case. Its not your concept so don't feel bad, but basically the concept is, a rhetorical question, well 2 of, made into a stupid question, and an article on it. So the concept is based on something stupid and not funny, so what are you going to get? Either something stupid or something not funny. I'm not saying it's not possible to write something good here, but it is going to be very difficult and no doubt we will be seeing this article on here, amendment after amendment, but thats a good thing, you get more and more reviews and advice from different users and eventually you'll get something good. Or you'll give up and write something else, its all good.
Prose and formatting: 4 Punctuation and grammer is ok, a couple of mistakes, there is no point me showing you them on here because its not a major concern and when you re-write again you'll probably either delete them or fix them, either way, make sure you proof read. My main concern is the language you're using, as I explained before it doesnt work and you might have to find a new one, double negatives are fine but when I find one every 2 lines I'm not amused.
Images: 3 Add another image and funny-up the captions, what is Gods name does the IRS auditing the bear have to do with this article? Nothing, it just doesn't work. The Russian guy could be funnier, the sin one is the only good one there but I'm sure you could also improve the caption there, the idea is difficult I know, will take alot of work.
Miscellaneous: 6 Above average score because this concept is a difficult one to implament, I can see you've worked hard but it still needs alot of work, a very challanging article indeed and I hope to see a re-write on here soon.
Final Score: 22 Difficult idea, so far not-so-good, but I'm sure it can be better. Sorry for the harsh review but I was being honest and unbiased.
Reviewer: The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 13:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects