Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Lucky Charms

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Lucky Charms

I need this reviwed because I'm afraid it looks too much like a wizard did it. Damn one-liners...BUT THEY'RE STILL MAGICALLY DELICIOUS!Bad Shroom 23:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Staircase in person
This article is under review by none other than.....

Let down your hopes, eh?
Humour: 2 Now, I'm no Hyperboloe, but I'll have to do as best as I can.

Now, after reading your piece (Which was a challenge, I might say), I might say that I was more pleased than disappointed. However, I pleased from another aspect of your article rather than the humour itself, but we'll get to that later. After the near-hour it took me to read this, I found myself thinking. "Now, something seems very familiar about this." And, I went thinking back, I realized how eerily similar to A wizard did it this article really is. Now, if you ask me, A wizard did it is truly funny, original, and entertaining. This, however, left me disappointed. This was because of two main reasons: One, its unoriginality (See Concept), and, two, its actual content.

As for the content of this article, I was expecting far more from this article. I always take a brief look at articles before I review them, and as I spent my time reading your article I decided to review it so I could get one main point across to you: Most one liners aren't funny. Now, in some cases, they can work, but the obvious copy-cruft of this article truly did kill the joke for me. I was expecting something along the lines of Corn Flakes, which I truly enjoy reading even after several times. You see, I am more of a fan of factual-based articles as opposed to stories or 'one liners' such as this. For this reason, I recommend a full overhaul of the article, rewritten in the form of a pleasing, factual article loaded up with content. This, if executed properly, could lead to a feature. As far as I know, everyone enjoys getting a feature here and there, and, in my humble opinion, I don't think oddly-similar-to-another-article one liners are exactly Feature Material.

Now, all of this is counting the article without the template at the bottom, which, in my opinion, should not really be considered part of the article. That tag usually signifies a stub, but in this case is left to appear that way for the sake of the joke. However, as I found this joke particularly unfunny, the box left me disappointed as well.

I also saw the comment you left on Madmax's talk page, regarding whether he thought this particle piece of literature was VFH quality or not, and I believe his response was vary accurate. You have to show us something special about your article, some so very different that sets it apart from other one-liners and makes it so much better. However, after taking about an hour to read the whole thing (Which I am proud to say I did.), I didn't really see anything that set you article apart from the other one liners of Uncyclopedia. You could beg the argument that your article is much different from Fischer Price, which it is, but I don't find that as a strong argument.

Overall, your article wasn't all the creative, or funny, but, as MadMax said, it is safe from VFD, depending on whether the voters are particularly grumpy or not. The bottom line: You can leave this article as it is, but you will never go anywhere with it, unless the hearts of Uncyclopedians change very dramatically. I suggest that you take this article, and write a good-lengthen factual-toned article that could have so much more room for laughs, and, possibly, become a feature.

You also may have noted how I said other aspects of the article did entertain me. For the explanation regarding that, you should the Image Section.

Concept: 3 Now, as stated in the above section, the article appeared to be a copy of A wizard did it, with nothing different but a different but the title, image, and a few words. In my opinion, I do not find that to be very 'original' or 'creative'. And, as you may have saw in my rant above this, I would like to see something different from your article.

Yes, your article does have potential. You could really make this into a winner, feature, and damn good article. However, I do not think this can be achieved via profanity, an image, and a tag. It can be achieved through other things, such as a story or a factual-toned article. Like I said once before, Corn Flakes was a good article about cereal, and you could make this article very similar to that. The key is work. All you need is some determination, jokes, and good ideas and you can whip out a quality article in a few moments time.

However, as this article stands, it really lacks that 'original' feel that makes readers say "Wow, that's cool how he took that angle of the subject and made something really funny out of it". Perhaps if I hadn't already known about A wizard did it or if that had not existed at all, I would be giving you thumbs up for this idea, but, A wizard did it does exist, and was made before your article, making look as though you just saw that and said "Hehe, since that hasn't be deleted, I could make something eerily similar and try to get by with it." I know that isn't what you said, or at least I think I know. Also, another area regarding this that made me second-guess myself about you just taking A wizard did it and changing a word around was the fact that both featured the words 'Fucking' and 'Magical'. Yes, yours said 'magically', but it's rather the same; therefore I shall consider them so. Now, after seeing that, my copy-alert went through the roofs. I'm sorry, but this article's concept is perhaps one of the worst I have seen, just because of the fact that it was so obviously unoriginal. Now, I'm not trying to be mean here, I'm just trying to get the facts across. And, as I said in the Humor section, I'm trying to emphasize the one-liners generally don't go anywhere or do anything worth noting.

The whole point is that I think your article needs to be re-written. I don't know how much I can emphasize that, but I'm going to say it quite a few times so that you can understand. Yes, it may make some laugh, but this really needs to be written into a respectable article. Those are the kind that get featured and that people add to their "Favorite Articles ands Such Rubbish" lists.

Prose and formatting: 10 Is there really anything I can say? I read your whole article, the whole thing and I found no spieling errors whatsoever. In fact, I was so determined to find a mistake, I read through this five times, wasting several hours of my life. I found none, and for this I automatically award you a hefty amount of points. Sure, it's short, but what do you expect from an article like this?

One thing I may note, however, is the image/text ratio. You may be thinking, "Damn, how can this guy complain? It's a damn ONE LINER!", but, the fact is I am not complaining. I am saying that it looks swell; it's really quite perfect if nothing else. I admire you for creating such a balance. The rest, as they say, was dandy. The template looked good; you had a good amount of links considering the amount of text that is there.

Images: 8 Now, having read the entire review thus far, you would probably expect a nice hefty paragraph about the image; but I have something quite different. So different, in fact, that it's only one word:

LOL (Which, technically, is an acronym of three words, so you could either way with that, depending on your interpretation of things.)

Miscellaneous: 5.8 See Below.
Final Score: 28.8 Yes, you may have thought I had a biased/mean reiew, but I said what I thought needed to be said. This article is probably safe from deletion, but not much than that. Normally at the end of a review, I give a list of things the person needs to do to improve their article's overall quality, but I only have one for you today.
  • Make this a real, funny, respectable article.

Doing such a thing will take quite a bit of work, but it's easily achievable. As I said many times before, if done correctly this article could become featured. So, good luck, and have fun!

Reviewer: Staircase CUNt 01:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools