Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Lady Gaga Syndrome
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
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.-- 20101011 - 06:42 (UTC)
|Humour:||5||Okay, piece by piece dissection... (overall wound up in concept, I think)
|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:||-- 20101012 - 16:51 (UTC)|