Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Michael Haneke
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Siddhartha-Wolf 19:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
|Humour:||5||Hello, Siddartha. Since I haven't seen your face around, you're obviously new, and so I'll be lenient.
I really don't know what to say. The article starts off good, but then it just... ends. You really need to expand on what you have, because stubby articles are likely to get put on either VFD or ICU, and both ways it's in danger of deletion.
Also, you have three blank sections. Blank sections are not good because they make your article look ugly (which I'll talk about more in the P&F section) and they are usually unfunny. There has to be some well known link to the blank sections for them to be funny, like Poland or The Emperor's New Clothes. If there was a link to the blank sections, I didn't know it.
I also didn't know this guy existed till I read the article or that he was a filmmaker till I saw the Wikipedia article, which I will get to below.
|Concept:||6||I would reccomend talking to Guildy. He has a series of four featured filmmaker articles, and is in general on an absolute roll, so yeah. Also, if you write an article about a filmmaker, it should be about a filmmaker. In Guildy's articles, he explains about the filmmaker for anyone who doesn't know who they are, and then will tell a funny joke? This is the style that you need to use.|
|Prose and formatting:||2.5||Very poor. I already mentioned the empty sections, but you have a list, and while that is bad, you have a list, with red links in it, that was ugly and needs to be fixed. I tried to be really brief here, obviously.|
|Images:||7.5||Yes!! I liked the pictures. The first one wasn't HILARIOUS, but fit in okay where it was, and the second ones are really funny to anybody who knows Haneke's style. Then again, adding some content about his film style would be nice?|
|Miscellaneous:||5.3||averaged your scores|
|Final Score:||26.3||A good start, but with expansion it could be awesome, even maybe a feature. Good luck in your writings!|
|Reviewer:||~~Sir Fightstar Rocks! CUN 00:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)|
Hi, thanks for the review, I have no idea whether it is acceptable for me to write here or not, I'm still - as you probably know - getting to grips with this site. Yeah, I only actually put this on here because I was advised to do so in order to get a little bit of input/criticism on my work thus far, it's pretty clear it's not finished yet. I'm glad you like it so far, your review is very useful, I'll give this Guildy a bell, see what ideas he can put in. I assume he knows Haneke, so he'll be able to see what I'm trying to do with it. It's a tightrope walk really, I want to try and combine two very different views of Haneke into one - the first with him as a film-maker, like a satirical biography, the second as a slightly more absurdist depiction of Haneke as an emotionless automaton (hence like his movies). The balance is difficult :(
[I posted this on your page too]