Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Leprechaun (FINAL REVIEW)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Leprechaun

I did it! I finally got off my lazy ass (well, actually, I got on it, but you know what I mean) and finished the article. After writing, changing, writing, changing, writing, changing, nomming, changing, nomming, nomming, putting on hold for about 5 months, and deleting the 2nd half of the article, it's finally finished. One last Pee Review before I deem it DONE. Fetu+Img 1186786828=Uncle-john 03:47,3November,2009

As you requested I review this due to my ignorance (of past nominations), in 24 hours I'll tell you about the little people. I expect my payment in gold. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 16:46, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
Do you accept round pieces of chocolate wrapped in tacky gold foil? Fetu+Img 1186786828=Uncle-john 19:58,6November,2009
Sure! Send me 20 lbs. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 20:09, November 6, 2009 (UTC)


There you go. I assume digital chocolate is fair? Fetu+Img 1186786828=Uncle-john 20:22,6November,2009

Sure! Tries to chew his computer screen but forgets to first unwrap it WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 20:48, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Introduction I like to start my reviews by stating how unqualified I am. I'm currently nommed for RotM, have a basic idea of leprechaun mythology, but as I think I told you I haven't seen any of the leprechaun movies (if you don't count "Darby O'Gill and the Little People," which I don't remember anyway).
Concept: 7 The concept seems to be “government accidentally creates monster who goes on a rampage.” That’s fine; it’s served as the basic plot in one form or another of many movies. But this article has elements that could be developed more, as described below.
Prose and Formatting: 6 I put Prose and Formatting comments and Humour together to avoid unnecessary repetition, but do score them separately. (You'll see this, as your Humour score is lower than P and F).

Overall, I think your writing is good, and fits the idea of a report. There are some things, though, that don’t seem to be explained, leaving loose ends. And I do think it could use more humour throughout.


I think overall you have a good, solid introduction. However, "The following, as of November 12, 1995, is not to be seen by human eyes"--this left me wondering, then why am I reading this and who is this written for? "Any and all information disclosed here may not, under any circumstances, be available for viewing."--viewing by who? If the reader isn't supposed to be reading this, you might want to make that more clear. Or maybe "under any circumstances, may not be released to the public" or "may not be released to anyone without Top Secret security clearance" or something. Also, I found the introduction largely lacking in humour--this could be the intro to a real horror movie. And personally, I'd like the name "Pot of Gold" or "Gold Pot" better than "Pot Gold," but that may just be me. I like the "faster, stronger, more agile...remaining sane" part, especially as we learn it didn't work.

The Project

"...none of the officials in Operation: Pot Gold survived...."--this is classic, but it works. I like the fused-to-the-crushed-scientist bit, and the recording. The bastard bit I found a little amusing. "Even the greatest minds" I might like better as "greatest investigators" or some such. But as above, this section largely sounds like a description of a horror movie, however well described, and I don't see much humour.

The Creature

"Coincidentally, this local's discrimination turned out to be accurate"--did you mean description? Or if you mean he descriminated against little people, I think you could spell that out, maybe, "Sir, we don't discriminate just because someone's a little person." I had to reread it to see that might be what you meant. "repetitive 911 calls"--should be "repeated 911 calls". "altered his appearance to fit that of a human"--what was his appearance before? He was short, old, deformed, but did he look non-human? The first photo may tell us that he didn't look exactly like your usual human, but your earlier description didn't, so maybe you could add a word or two to say he looked inhuman. “Leprechaun may be more of “--should be “might be more of”.

The Green Party

"He had what they wanted, and he was more than willing to share"--what did he have that they wanted? I’d say that here. "Translated as best as possible from whatever language it was speaking"--this might be stretching credibility a bit; who could translate an unknown language? Maybe say it's classified, or from the "strange language." "They have anguished....new black death! It's magically fucking delicious!"--I get the Lucky Charms reference, but don't see how new black death goes with magically delicious, even if this is someone who's deranged. Also I don't get the fucking the golden pot part. “It seemed as if there was a disaster on its way”--why did it seem that way? Do we have a foreshadowing of what kind of disaster?

The Aftermath

”since the capture of the leprechaun”--when was it captured? I saw the part about the recording being captured, but not the leprechaun. Also I’m curious considering that the leprechaun is from Irish folklore why there’s a couple references to bratwurst, which is German. I think an Irish food would work better, maybe “Irish stew” or “potatoes” or “black pudding.” “He carved a four-leaf clover into his chest!”--this means the leprechaun carved a four-leaf clover into his own chest; is that what you meant? If so, why? Or if you meant the husband’s chest, maybe “He carved a four-leaf clover into my husband’s chest!” Also why was this woman’s report taken more seriously than the others? “Leprechaun's condemning DNA evidence found”--I had to read this three times to get what it meant. Maybe cut the word “condemning.”
“they refuse to check the storage facility that the Leprechaun was supposedly kept in.”--this pushes my credibility; even an incompetent investigator would look. Unless “they had to forcibly remove the mentally-deranged woman who ranted insanely about the leprechaun being locked in her garage” or some such. “The Green Party is currently alleged to serve as the presidential party of terrorist-supporters”--this seems like a polemic against The Green Party, and doesn’t seem to fit this article.
“The U.S. government plans to continue working on controversial and possibly dangerous experiments”--why is the reader being told this? “This document is sentenced to be burned on November 12, 1995, eliminating the only way that it can read again by anyone.”--a document isn’t sentenced, a person is. Maybe “by order of the Department of Defense (or whatever agency), this document shall be destroyed by burning on November 12, 1995.” But it wasn’t destroyed, so why not and why are we reading it?

Again, I think some of the descriptions in the article are good, but there are some questions you might want to answer.


"To be honest, I often don't get around to looking at footnotes until after I read an article. Yes, I know you can click up and down, but not all of us do that, especially not us oldtimers who remember the old, old days of three or five years ago when you couldn't do that (and some people simply don't know about it). So generally I think it's good to make footnotes optional, where the article will work without them, and also where the footnotes are self-explanatory. For example (not in your article), instead of a footnote reading “this clearly explains why she didn’t,” something like “the presence of the 10-foot tall chicken explains why she didn’t fry the giant egg.”
Footnote 1: “Bastardation Bill of 1975”--what was this? Maybe a very brief description, a few words.
Footnote 2 'cop's alleged intent of "beating"' should be 'cop's alleged intent was "beating"'
Footnote 3: I don’t get this--would we expect a victim’s body to have someone else’s urine in it?
Humo(u)r: 3 Most of these comments are above. I didn’t find much that I personally found humorous. The article read primarily as a straight description, and some of the humour didn’t seem to fit the subject of the article.
Images: 8 In general, I liked your images and captions. I’m guessing that you had the leprechaun looking more human so you could use the Hornswoggleacid.jpeg photo, but that’s all right.
Miscellaneous: 6 Average of above.
Final Score: 30 In conclusion, I like the writing, and there were some very nice descriptions of the leprechaun and the carnage (I particularly like the professor and the tape recorder--your description I found better than the image). If you added more humour throughout that really fits the leprechaun, and tightened up some of those loose ends, I would score this quite a bit higher. Happy editing!
Reviewer: WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 04:33, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools