Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Michelle Obama
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Wurstnachtmare 19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
|This article is under review by|
Sayeth Gerry: shotgun!!
|Humour:||4.3||average of humor scores
well, you've got some random stuff here, but you've got a bit of good content, too. you kind of establish a direction you're going, with a fairly encyclopedic tone, so i expect a sort of normal biography article as far as type of article. i find myself confused by the rapid-fire stuff going on in the intro: first she's at a law firm, then she's kidnapped, then she's getting money from crime bosses...it didn't give me time to think. i recommend you stay a little closer to the truth than things like claiming she was assembled from sugar and barack delivering an address to the black panthers. the baking cookies line, however, was gold.
this is again a stretch. i feel that information is being rapidly fired at me, yet little of it seems to connect together in a coherent way. she's visiting different places, smacking jesse jackson, burying feces, but the reader doesn't know why. try to slow down, pace yourself, and explain the reasoning behind her actions since her husband assumed office. that way, the reader doesn't feel so confused, and you can see which ideas can be trimmed.
i liked the fox news praise and the palace denial, but this section seems to have the same problems as the other sections, although to a slightly lesser degree. for example, you suddenly mention that she is a jew. i think this section ahs the most promise out of those so far, because you can focus one narrow thing: how michelle appears in the press. try to elaborate on how she's been received by other media outlets the way you did with fox news, and this section will come along nicely.
ummm, this section seems tacked on, and i can't figure out what it's about. she's just being the first woman now, doing something with sexual positions, and threatening a cleaning staff? you need to clarify what you're saying or scrap this section.
|Concept:||6||5/5 points for a well-known subject worthy of parody. we should certainly have an article on michelle obama.
1/5 points for execution. you never really seem to get a solid theme going. you're not sticking very close to the truth, but you also don't have an consistent deviations from the truth either. for example, if barack obama is speaking to the black panthers, then he is a black supremacist, and should be cast as such throughout the entire article. i'm not saying that's the way you should portray him, but it's just an example of the way your article should feel connected instead of disjointed facts that really don't have a central theme to them. try to trim some of the random stuff, like her brother being Mr. T.
|Prose and formatting:||9||this article is formatted pretty well, although the images are rather big; perhaps they could be shrunk a few pixels (except the first one). no real problems with prose or spelling or grammar. you really don't need that template way at the top, it's just clutter.|
|Images:||3||your images are inconsistent. she's oprah, then she's in the white house but it's a cancer ward, then she's someone who i don't know who that is. they don't go along with the article very well, since they are more confusing than anything else. if you're going to do the article 'michelle obama is really oprah', then use the oprah image, otherwise get a real image of her.|
|Miscellaneous:||5.6||averaged via magic|
|Final Score:||27.9||my preview button tells me that your score is 27.9, rendering this a tad short of being an adequate uncyclopedia article. you have very high prose and formatting scores, so what you should focus on is the content. try to get a central theme going, and if that theme is straight encyclopedic parody, then stick a little closer to the truth. i recommend checking out UN:BEST, which is where our most awesome articles go, and picking out a few articles on people, and then reading them to see some good biography articles. you should check out HTBFANJS, and if you have already, check it out again. i personally read it once a week. good luck improving this article, and please bring any questions to my talk page.|
|Reviewer:||15:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)|