Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Lady Gaga Syndrome

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 16:51, October 12, 2010 by Lyrithya (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit Lady Gaga Syndrome

How hip, rad and current of me, a Lady Gaga related article. Enjoy its mind numbing power, or don't. Constructive criticism is welcome.

CitizenKeane 13:33, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Dissection shall commence shortly. Er, I mean reviewing. One earth day, give or take a time zone, etc etc, hopefully it serves a purpose. ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101011 - 06:42 (UTC)

Humour: 5 Okay, piece by piece dissection... (overall wound up in concept, I think)
  • Firstly, the quotes... do they really add anything? They're a demonstration of the syndrome, but don't actually fit the encyclopaedic format of the rest of it. The first two, at least, might do better as examples within the symptoms section, but since I have no idea what you're getting at with the third, I can't say much about that.
Is immediately insulting the fans wise? If the overall thing is insulting while the individual sentences no so much, it might prove more effective in the long run. I'm wondering why you describe the fans and then say they are that and then redundantly state that the syndrome affects them and then point out that it's redundant; why not just say it affects fans of the pop-anomaly, describe how it may or may not have to do with some common characteristics (and you could include positive and negative at this point), and then describe what it is and how it is perceived... go for flow, and the jokes should flow with it. Hopefully.
  • Symptoms - This is possibly the section you could do the most with. You make good points, like the comments on the youtue videos, for instance, and the more clinical physical symptoms, and you could expand on these. Just how far do the fans take their comparisons? How wrong are they? What impacts do they have later in life, let alone now? Long term and short term prognoses, that kind of thing, and whatnot.
  • Treatment - Judging by the symptoms, it's not merely psychological. Might want to address that. The decapitation could use more of a lead-up; it comes very suddenly, but I must say I do appreciate such measures. Like running out of snacks and immediately resorting to cannibalism. Good fun.
Effective. You mean effective. Right?
More on these diets, perhaps? Who's running the trials? How in-depth are they?
  • Madonna-Gaga Conflicts - This is so specific. Why just Madonna? Why not others? I mean, it emphasises the silliness of a major symptom, and media coverage is generally good for research, but why just her? If you make it more general, the section might have more sense about it. And for that matter, why hasn't the media coverage helped the researchists?
  • Lady Gaga on LGS - This section as it is doesn't entirely fit with the rest of it; it's a flow thing, I suppose. Needs more leading up to it, or some such. But the sheer silliness should not go unnoted; the VAGINA and the extremes to which Gagaism will go make for an amusing addition. It just needs to fit better.
Concept: 7 Lady Gaga... I honestly cannot say I am familiar with her. Fortunately, what you're doing with this, that's not a major issue. A syndrome based on obsession. Made-up science. Encyclopedic parody... any of those apart could easily fail utterly, let alone together. Oddly, you sort of pull it off. It needs work, of course, but where you are going with it has great hope. And I forgot what I was saying because I wandered off and took a nap in the middle of that last sentence.

Back to seriousness, however, what you are doing here hinges heavily on understanding of this Lady Gaga's true influence on people. ecause the main Lady Gaga article really, well, isn't very good, you need to support your points here, to make this, effectively, an entirely self-sufficient article. As you already seem to have the structure for this laid with many of the jokes, it probably wouldn't take much to elaborate on them, explaining the true influences, for instance, and subsequently emphasise how utterly wrong the fans are in their assumption that Lady Gaga inspired these other folks. Things like this, I suspect, would not only make it easier for the culturally deficient but also perhaps make it overtly funnier in general.

Prose and formatting: 6 'Nonsense' encyclopaedia parodies can be a tricky thing. Incidentally, I've never been able to get them right, so mind I may not know what I'm talking about (Not that I necessarily do regarding anything else, here, but that's not the point.). But anyway, consistency is key - if you're in the character of a scientist, remain in character. Made-up words are good. Slang can work if used in a logical context. Randomly inserted, however, it will not, nor will parenthetical asides or even rhetorical questions - this is an informative piece. Unless you are intending to make it part of the joke, (and at this point, it's too inconsistent for that to seem likely) keep to the perspective of detached observer, being serious and clinical while comparing it to funny things describing and overly serious but ludicrous condition.

Links are another way to make points and emphasise jokes, but for some reason you have nearly all of them leading to people, despite the link text not actually having anything to do with them. Some seem to be examples, but I don't really understand why they'd need exemplifying. Are you comparing her to Hitler, for instance? That has, literally and figuratively been done to death, but if you actually want to make the point, make the point. Say it in the same clinical tone as the rest of the article attempts. Perhaps a part about criticism of this fanaticism, how it is paralleling <blank>, or some other way to tie it in.

Also, it is highly improper to concatenate sentences with commas. Highly improper. Use semicolons or - thingies or something. Or maybe just leave them as separate sentences.

Perhaps this is just a pet peeve of mine, but don't say 'as mentioned previously'. If it doesn't logically follow from what you mentioned previously, clearly there's something wrong with whatever's in-between. Although in this case, it does, so you should probably just remove the phrase.

And it could use more of a conclusion; Lady Gaga's reaction doesn't really end the thing overly well. Perhaps if you move the treatment section to the end or added a section tying it all together with prospects for how the syndrome will progress (or add a little more to the treatment), it would work better. As it is, though, if you don't tie the entire thing together, it just ends. It's all empty, like.

Images: 6 Is that... a cucumber? Or what? It looks like it was added on after, but either way I'm inclined to wonder why... which might be something to address in the caption. As it is, though, the captions don't add much to the article (even detract a bit, for their diverging tone)... tie the images in directly. How does/has the horse-Madonna-Madge affect/been affected by the syndrome? What is the relevance of the troops? It's a strange image to include, but if you want to include it, make concrete that it really should be there.

And the captions that ask questions - what earnest medical thingy does that? Instead of posing rhetorical questions, why not say what you're getting at... but in a detached, analytical and perhaps sympathy-eliciting tone. Instead of 'is there any hope?' you could say, "note the <whatever>; these sufferers are demonstrating <whatever>. With proper treatment and <whatever>, they may in time return to society as productive, contributing members." I mean, don't use that, but that might be the kind of thing you could use. Basically, tie it into the point of the article, make some joke. Same with all of them, I suppose. You could also say something demeaning about the last image, but at very least I'd advise using a full sentence for consistency with the others.

And besides bringing up the cucumber or balloon or whatever that thing in her hair is in the first one, you should probably tie it into the article. Okay, so that's the Lady Gaga herself - what about her as shown here contributes to the syndrome? Or something tying it in more directly, at any rate.

Miscellaneous: 5 It's an article. Not great now, not terrible, has hope. Thus, number.
Final Score: 29 Er, don't mind the numbers so much. Five seems to be average on my scale, but they really just follow my whims at the time. And for some reason, everything I review seems to add up to about the same final score, anyway. So... pay more heed to the comments. I do like what you have started here; hopefully you shall be able to make some sense of my meandering comments and get some use from them, at that. Cheers and good luck.
Reviewer: ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101012 - 16:51 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects