Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Jimmy Wales Is Shakespeare

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Jimmy Wales Is Shakespeare

<insert image> -02:54, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'll do this, but this is a tough one. Also, I removed that image- it messed with the review's formatting, at least according to my preview..--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Wednesday, 01:19, June 09 2010 UTC

Thanks mucho. looks very snazzy, wow good job @

Humour: 2 I'm going to lump a lot of my advice in concept, but I'll give you some stuff here. First, with the quote at the top, "pence" isn't real currency...at least I don't think it is. You could really just say "euros" or dollars/cents. Making up stuff is generally considered bad here- it isn't really funny, and it messes with tone and flow.

Now, have you read HTBFANJS? Well, you certainly should, if you haven't. First off, the thing abut Jimbo partying in college is random. Where does it come from? He didn't party in college in real life, (at least, I find no evidence that he did)so it doesn't make sense to make something up like that. See the third paragraph in concept. Second, the "Early Career" section isn't funny, because it isn't coherent enough. I had to read it three times to understand it. This looks like it is a better section, but it needs to be re-read too many times. I think the reason for this was because it was written in a "sophisticated" manner, and the rest of the article wasn't, so it was unexpected. You did another weird thing here: You basically put the next section at the end, except in different words, and without the "a lot of success" thing. If you took out the stuff about primates and monkeys, it would make more sense. The Progressive Thinking section seems to be the end of the previous section with some random made-up numbers, which are considered very unfunny. It doesn't really add anything to the article and I think it should just be cut. Now, monkey porn really isn't funny, because it is random. If Jimbo Wales were a monkey lover, it may have been OK to use this, but he isn't, so it isn't. Actually, except in very rare cases, bestiality really isn't considered funny. The problem with it is actually sort of outlined in the article: Bestiality references tend to be really random and unfunny, usually coming down to "He fucks animals lolz0rz". I would seriously just cut everything below the "Jimmy's Monkey Porn Controversy" section, including the headline itself. The next section is unnecessary. Again with the made-up numbers (100's). This is completely untrue, which is why it's not funny. I would just get rid of that section.

Concept: 1 You need some serious help here. This may be where the root of your problem is. (It's a 1 because it's an unoriginal concept and the execution needs help, as detailed below) Instead of giving you a bunch of advice on your current concept, I'll mix that and advice on a potential future concept, one that would be a lot better.

The concept and the title should be consistent with each other. You didn't go anywhere with the whole "Jimmy Wales Is Shakespeare" idea. You just gave his life story, but no evidence as to why he is akin to Shakespeare. Considering there already is a Jimbo Wales article, I would like it if you went with the "Shakespeare" idea. How will you go about doing this? Here are some ideas:

Shakespeare was a very smart and sophisticated person; why not write an article about Jimbo in a very sophisticated tone, (the entire article, not just one section) detailing sophisticated experiences he had? Monkey porn isn't very sophisticated. Neither is throwing around sophisticated phrases, such as "Sir", because it doesn't fit in with what you're writing. You can still satirize his life this way, but in a funnier manner that is more consistent with the title. An example line from such a thing: "Jimmy Wales created Wikipedia, a sophisticated, informal project for sophisticated people only. - That's not funny at all, but it gets the point across.

Note that what satirical jokes you make should be based off of something. The concept of him loving monkey porn really isn't. The concept of him being Shakespearian is, and is therefore funny. This is a big problem here, and the reason it was ICU'd. I quote: "The truth is funnier than outright lies." Here's an example of bad satire that is based off of nothing: "Oprah was discovered to have sex with hamsters." - Oprah has nothing to do with hamsters; the author sounds like a fool. Something funnier: "Richard Nixon was recently found to have stepped on a kitten. He says that "What? The damn thing was in my way!" -That’s not a particularly funny line, but it at least makes sense: Richard Nixon is considered a heartless and cruel man by some. Keep in mind that while that works for that concept, putting it in where it’s unrelated won’t be funny- that’s called namedropping, and it is very bad.

This article is also quite short, kind of stubby, actually. You can't really take as much advantage out of your concept with such a short article. If you expand based on the ideas I gave above, it will make this longer. However, you will have to cut a few things, so I recommend you add a lot of length when you input your new concept.

When inputting new material, you must ask yourself: does this at least come close to the idea HTBFANJS sets? Is it professional, close to the truth, and not nonsense or totally random? If the answer is no, leave/take it out. Even small bits of unfunny ruin a good article- so, you must input your best ideas and your funniest. So, when inputting changes suggested here, make sure that they will be satirical, truthful, appropriate for the topic, and most of all, actually funny. And then there's your prose...

Prose and formatting: 2 You have quite a few problems here, mostly with grammar and formatting.

First, that giant image at the top combined with the template is really annoying. Huge images and templates at the top annoy a lot of people. I think you should get rid of the top template and re-size the image to be way smaller. But, if you have a particular attachment to the template, you should move it to the bottom if you want to keep the image up there with it, no matter what size the image is.

A random grammar thing: don't put a space before your punctuation- every time you do, a puppy dies. At other places, such as "pulp fiction writer monkey", you didn't use correct wording. There should be an "and" between writer and monkey- just "writer monkey" really doesn't make much sense.

More wording issues: you used some really awkward tone at some places. This awkward wording made the article sound really awkward. For example: "With whatever earnings" - it would be so much easier to just say "the". You may be attempting to satirize using big words, but I feel it just makes the article sound strange. So, you should try to find all of the places where you did this, and you should make them simpler.

You also abused innocent commas. An example: "Jimmy Wales, was born" - never put a comma before the word "was". You should either get rid of the comma or the word "was". Both would work. Another thing: if you use the word "however", you should almost always put a comma afterwards. Then, you should put a second comma after whatever event (or whatever else) you are describing. When putting feelings at the beginning of a sentence, such as "very luckily", you should put a comma before and after you said emotion. You should read the article to yourself, and this will catch most comma problems and missing words, which I also noticed. Every time you pause in the middle of the sentence, put a comma.

You misspelled multiple words, including "gravity", "entrepreneur", "chimpanzees", and "inappropriate". Always make sure to spellcheck your articles- just a quick run through Microsoft Word will suffice, as random people will usually come in and fix any mistakes that are left over. If you don't have Microsoft Word, you should get it. It also checks for grammar, which will help you as well.

I noticed that you used <br> tags to make a line break. You don't need to do this. To make a line break, skip a line and then put your text on the next one, as I did in this review.

This article's tone doesn't seem very professional, which is preferred on Uncyclopedia in most cases. Taking care of the comma problems will help a lot of this. But, an underlying problem is within what you are talking about. Your title has "Shakespeare" in it, so most would expect it to be in the King's Old English, or at least for it to sound sophisticated. Now, scan your article over- how professional and sophisticated does your article sound? Not very, right?

Something good I found is that you at least had relatively good spelling, but see the mistakes above. I also noticed that your images were on the right side and there were enough for it not to look like a wall of text.

Another bad thing is that there a lot of sections here. I dislike when there are a lot of sections and there isn't a lot of content in them. It makes the article look over-formatted. See advice about humor above; this mixes in a lot. Also, try to use subsections (===<text>===) for smaller amounts of text.

The last bad thing is that you have no links. This is a serious problem- this is a Wiki, and is a collection of links, basically. Articles without links may be tagged as {{deadend}} and deleted after 30 days if no one inserts links. To add a link, put two brackets [[around each side of the word you want to link, like this.]] [[<insert actual article you want to link to here>|If you want links to say something different than the title of the article you are linking to, put a displayed pipe after the link's title and put in what you want it to say, like this.]] Make sure to link to actual articles- if you don't you will create red links, which are annoying. Some non-red links available in your current text: Wikipedia, Peru, Jimbo Wales, and fact.

Images: 2 There are 3, and they have problems.

Your first image is OK, but could be a lot better. First off, it has no caption. Captions are a huge help to humor; a witty caption can be a big pick-me-up to your article. A caption is a chance for a one-liner, but remember to make it funny and consistent with the picture and the text. Another thing, for something funnier, you can replace Shakespeare's face with Jimbo's, which would've made me laugh. Also, the iPod and Wikipedia text protrude past the image, which makes it look weird. You'll need some image trickery to fix that. I don't know much about this, sorry. I really don't understand why the iPod is there, so you might want to just get rid of that.

I would just get rid of the second and third. See concept advice.

When you're putting in new images (Which you'll need to do for a longer article), you should use GIMP to photoshop them. You should try to shop images based on Jimbo looking like Shakespeare, like you did with the first one, and ones to satirize his life to be sophisticated-like. An example would be to put Jimbo using Wikipedia in a kingly outfit. Images like this would be so much funnier- and much more professional, too.

Miscellaneous: 2 A two.
Final Score: 9 This article needs help; but it's salvageable. Your main fixes:
  • Get a new concept
  • Have all of your satire based on something
  • Fix grammar
  • Lengthen the article

If you do the things suggested in this review, you'll have a much better article, and it will dodge {{Rewrite}} or {{VFD}}. It'll stay here, basically. Good luck, and remember to use HTBFANJS.

Reviewer: --Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Friday, 07:44, June 11 2010 UTC
Personal tools