Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Local

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 12:25, March 4, 2010 by ChiefjusticeDS (talk | contribs)

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


edit Local

Funnybony 19:21, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

I got this 24-48 hours--Grue JammyDirectorEye 4WILLExplode 3YOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 01:58, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
You are out of time on this one Iwillkillyou. I'm in here now. --ChiefjusticeGameBoy 11:04, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
Humour: 7 OK, the humour on this one isn't too bad and was very enjoyable in parts but there are a few things I would recommend you take a look at before you do anything else with this one. The very first thing that struck me about your article was that it is very reminisce of a lot of your other work, excellent in structure and in terms of ideas but still stumbling in the implementation. Permit me to expand, consider the opening to your article as if you were someone who is unfamiliar with surfing and people who surf, a person who thinks "Cowabunga" is a type of relish, you have a tendency to launch into your article's narrative and leave the context to be made up along the way, and indeed it was, I had a reasonable idea of what you meant by the time I completed the article, but hadn't a clue as I started reading. Take a look at your opening, you write with a very fast pace and the number of facts that are presented to the reader over the space of a couple of sentences makes the article somewhat harder to follow. I would suggest that you try slowing things down a bit, consider what you want to say in the opening, for instance were I starting an article about Darth Vader, I would want to get basic information on the character across to the reader, and maybe a brief summary of his more notable activities, now I know what I wanted to say I would look at presenting it to the reader, I would do this in such a way that each point could be easily discerned. If you are struggling to comprehend what I mean take a look at a wikipedia article and see what they do when they introduce the article. The point I am attempting laboriously to get to is that while your material in the opening is good and, once you understand it, provides all the context necessary for the rest of the article, but you should look at the way you present it, slow it down and make sure everything is clear. I realise you are trying for a certain tone with this, but I don't think you would need to get rid of that to make these changes. My feeling is that if you did this the article would feel much more accessible to readers and you would avoid the problem of having people leave your article without actually reading it, simply because they don't get the opening.

As far as your humour went I thought the general idea is good, though you should be aware once again of picking up too much speed in your narrative. Another thing you may wish to go back and take a look at are some of your throwaway jokes. Now jokes like this are useful and can hold a reader's attention particularly if you are concerned that a particular section of the article is not as funny as others. However I would recommend that you are wary of where you add such jokes, they should still have a grounding in the article and if they come from nowhere they can have a negative impact on a reader, the part in your article that attracted my attention on this score was when you said "Bear in mind that being a "local" is only by birth right, and anyone born on the inland side of any coastal highway can never be a real local. In fact, we pity the fool!" It seemed to me that there was no need to tag the 'we pity the fool' part on there, especially as the point was already made quite aptly. I'm not going to go on about that much further, you should go back and take a look and decide what you think of this one and then edit as you feel necessary. Beyond that I think your humour is pretty good, do your best to keep it on track at all times as you come close to falling into the trap of meandering from your point and then trying to tie what you are saying back. Read your own work carefully and get other people to read it and see what problems you come up with.

Concept: 6 The concept here is good but it is marred by some quite haphazard execution as far as your tone goes, this is by no means an irredeemable problem but is still something I think you should take a look at. The main point that struck me was that you seem unsure what you want the article to be (this point does have some bearing on your humour, but a larger one on your tone), at times your tone is encyclopaedic and you speak formally, but at other times you say things like "Locals are the best surfers. They are also the biggest Dick Headed jerks to ever reside on planet earth when it comes to their inter-action with inland kooks, whom they detest worse than Rabies." The problem for the humour here is that I am unsure how to read the article, if I read the article as though it is meant to be dictated by someone who is either a Local or happens to be irrationally fond of them, then when you say things like that it is amusing, but if I read it as though it is meant to be encyclopaedic then the above feels immature and sentences like "A local is, by definition, a native surfer who actually lives on the beach. Not just in a beach town, but actually resides, 24 hours a day, on the beach." work much better. The problem is that as a reader you cannot read the article both ways, meshing two tones sounds unprofessional and thus undermines the credibility of the article whichever way you look at it. What I thought would benefit you is considering trying something similar to what is done here. That article is about as close as you can reasonably get to having both with the encyclopaedic tone prioritised. Essentially you should read through and decide what you want the article to sound like and make sure you are going wholly in that direction.
Prose and formatting: 7 Pretty good on this one, the spelling and grammar are of a reasonable standard, and all I have to recommend is careful proofreading to catch minor errors that may slip into your article. For you especially, when proofreading try to read what you are saying properly as well as looking for errors, it takes longer but it can help you decide what is wrong with your article and identify where the main changes need to be. As far as formatting goes you have done reasonably well, just beware of the images seeming to pile up in the middle of the article, you could probably create some space my moving the thermal image down a bit as you have some space to use. Also be aware of the image at the top sitting right on top of the wikipedia template. Otherwise, not bad at all.
Images: 8 Your best section, I really liked the "kook-o-scope" image and caption, they both work really well with the article and are funny on their own, so excellent work there. I would implore you to work for a similar level of attainment on the others, just look to link the captions and image to the article where possible, the link doesn't have to be incredibly obvious, just enough so that someone reading can say, "That image is drawing on that joke". Good work here generally.
Miscellaneous: 7 My overall grade of the article.
Final Score: 35 Your article feels like it can be brilliant and I think that it definitely can be with a bit more work from you. You have the right idea and you have gone some way with the execution, so all that is left to do is iron out the final difficulties, which I have no doubt that you are able to do. If you have any questions or comments then feel free to leave them on my talk page and I will do my best to help out. Good luck making any changes.
Reviewer: --ChiefjusticeGameBoy 12:25, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools