Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Jacob Zuma
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
It'd probably be best if the reviewer had some knowledge of South Africa -- hopefully it'll be amusing regardless though. Viat 04:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
|Humour:||5||I'm writing this last, so preferably read the concept section below first.
Anyway, as discussed in concept, the article is hindered by being much too blatant in its political standpoint. It’s clear to me, though, that without this, the article could actually be really funny. People reading this article who agree with you will still be able to get a laugh, but even they will feel like they’re having an opinion shoved down their throats.
What’s more, some of Zuma’s political exploits (some, not all) are discussed too directly in here and aren’t really parodied enough. Personifying Zuma as a songoma and the ANC as a cult is a fair start, but a lot more could be done.
I won’t say too much else here for fear of overlapping. Suffice to say the main weakness of the humour in this article is the concept of the article.
|Concept:||5||Well, I can hardly call this a bad effort for a beginner. You’ve fleshed it all out well, and you’ve done an admirable job of touching on numerous aspects of the subject without stretching them out.
However, far more prominent in the concept is the article’s main weakness: it’s too blatantly one-sided. I’m not blaming you; it’s difficult for any rational-minded human being to favour JZ (except perhaps in a ‘the alternatives are worse’ sort of way), and I’m not asking you to do that. But there’s a middle ground, and this article isn’t on it; too much of it runs on the fact that the author thinks Zuma is an idiot. And of course, it’s perfectly possible for an article to be like that and still work: the opinion simply needs to be put through subtly and indirectly. But unfortunately, in this article, it’s blatantly stated several times, and just gets tiring and rather irritating, even if the reader agrees. One of Uncyclopedia’s key policies is to never substitute humour with bias, and this article, while still amusing, unfortunately does that. In short, this article would see a great improvement if the strong political viewpoint booming through it were toned down; there are plenty of ways to say that Zuma is uneducated and/or misogynistic without blatantly saying it and without letting it become too dominating in the article
But moving on from that, there’s one or two other issues too: for one, the article could really be linked a little closer with more recent political scandals and struggles than it is. Julius Malema, for instance, could have a better and more prominent role in the article (simply calling him Zuma’s bitch isn’t very comedic) that more closely relates to his personality and what he is to Zuma. The same goes for Zuma’s rival Mbeki, for the ANC Youth League, and for the political world of South Africa in general. Other scandals, such as cartoonist Zapiro and his infamous cartoon showing Zuma about to rape Lady Justice, could be brought in. Like I’ve said, the article covers its subject admirably well, but is still slightly too focused on Zuma’s stupidity and not quite enough on politics.
|Prose and formatting:||6||Well, with regards to prose, it’s not bad, and keeps a basic and invitingly casual tone that makes for an easy read. However, this is somewhat hindered by the (discussed above) rather forward opinion of Zuma’s stupidity. This isn’t all bad, actually, as it helps give the tone personality, but the tone should have some personality beyond a heavily anti-Zuma opinion. Try to flesh out the spectrum while keeping the tone’s personality.
Grammar’s okay. There’s the odd typo here and there, but I can’t even remember where they are, which probably means they’re insignificant. Nonetheless, you should try to avoid them in the future; one typo too many can wreck an article regardless of its quality.
Formatting could’ve been better, unfortunately. There’s too many red links, for one thing. Small things, but they make the article unattractive. And of course, the lack of images makes the article look text-heavy, which tends to discourage people from reading it. Otherwise, the article is laid out pretty well, but there’s room for improvement.
|Images:||3||Pity about this; the one image that there is is well photoshopped and relates well to the opening content, but...well, it’s the only image, and, as stated above, it makes the article look very text-heavy. I’m sure you’re able to get more that relate to the content, even if you don’t photoshop them too. What with all the references to the ‘showerhead’ gag, for one thing, it really needs to be visually depicted; you could pick out one of Zapiro’s famous drawings and give it a funny caption, or you could do some photoshopping yourself. Come to that, the article somehow seems incomplete without a Zapiro depiction of Zuma; any would be an improvement. That infamous one I mentioned earlier would complement article content about it well.
Moving on, though, the article could really also use some more images relating to the ANC-pictures of other members, manipulations of the logo...anything, really. Furthermore, the article could really do with an image relating to rape or misogyny or polygamy or anything of that variety. Just make sure it has a funny caption so that it doesn’t look serious in any way. And make sure it doesn’t come across as racist.
But those are just throwing-this-out-there ideas; any images you feel are appropriate would be fine provided they’re funny and relevant.
|Final Score:||23.8||All in all, a good effort for a newcomer that is severely hindered almost solely by its severe one-sidedness. Fix that, and you could really go places with this article. I hope this helped.|
|Reviewer:||BlueYonder - CONTACT|