Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Mike Tyson
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
- I'l see if I can get done when I'm finish with the review I'm currently doing--If you're 555 then I'm Talk What's it like to be a heretic? 19:45, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
- After going over it, I'm afraid this one is more challenging than I'm comfortable with, and may result in none indepth review, so I'm going to let someone else do this. Sorry about the inconvienence, but I think it's for the better.--If you're 555 then I'm Talk What's it like to be a heretic? 19:28, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
I... am going to complain about this article!
I mean, review it. I meant review. Because only a really pathetic individual would just do reviews for the excuse to complain... *shifty eyes* 03:25, 30 December 2010
- Since you are reviewing it (ugg) please look at the talk page and tell Funnybony he really needs to put that picture back in the lead where it was. And then there's all the stuff he took out, those too. Tell him, please tell him the article sucks without that picture and caption, and the other stuff. OK. Aleister 3:28 30 12
- Huh? Oh, right, I said I'd review this, didn't I... damn, I get sidetracked quickly. I'll... um, consider it, Aleister. Maybe. *shifty eyes* If I even remember to look. 03:38, 30 December 2010
Well, now wasn't he a pale baby... 03:44, 30 December 2010
|Humour:||8||I still know pretty much nothing about this fellow. Just what the article says, as looking the fellow up would take too much effort. But with this, that's not even really a problem - the background is set up well and much of it explains itself. I voted for on VFH last time for a reason, and it has even improved since; I suspect if folks could have been bothered to go back and reread it toward the end of its stay, after all you folks did to it in the meantime, it would already be a feature. What y'all have put together here is a damn fine piece, in other words.
Some things, though:
This is a small gripe, but while the introduction is basically the history leading up to the body of the article proper, which actually works quite well, the lead sentence deviates slightly in idea at its end, so when it jumps into the rest of that, it's just odd, since the 'chip' doesn't affect much of the rest of it. That, or I'm still not clear on what that phrase even means; I had to look it up. Anyway, my point is, if you give an example or some such of how the chip was there from the start, and then start a new paragraph for the next stuff, not only would it help the flow a bit, but whatever you come up with could be quite amusing, or at very least help out the idiomatically challenged like me become less confused.
The boxing styles section is lovely, but make sure it makes sense with the rest of it. The tenses aren't consisten with what what comes later would suggest... just in general, like that other article I complained about, make sure things make sense, at least within the context of the article... they're funnier when they don't confuse the reader.
Most of the jokes are just excellent, though; I really don't have anything to say to most of this.
Why would people be laughing at his apparent instability? Seems more scary than... eh. Was it particularly comical when he bit off the guy's ear? Any way to make it seem more comical?
Trail of Ears seems a little random... why ripping off all their ears; did he completely forget how to punch people out as well? And the Lone Ranger... okay, now I'm just missing something. Add a link, perhaps?
He named the tigers Buster after mutilating them? Eh, he really is crazy, innit he...
In other news, the quotes are just disturbing. Oh well. Sum it up pretty well, I'd say. The fact that the footnotes point out accuracy only makes them better, but some of the footnotes are just... ehh? The self-referential nature doesn't fit with the rest of it at all, and saying 'He actually said this!', perhaps a link to where or some such would work better? As it is it comes across like some started fanboy walked in later and said that... other than that they're fine, though, I suppose. References merit referencing, certainly.
|Concept:||10||What you and the others have done here works quite well, nursing the jokes to a point and then moving on, bringing up point after point of general craziness, scariness, playing out his descent and whatnot, and supporting it all with examples and evidences and funnies consistent through the thing... eh, very nice.|
|Prose and formatting:||6||I think the main thing you'll want to focus on at this point is the formatting - after all the different folks who added to this and changed and bickered, and the rather massive cuts it has recieved along the way, the presentation could look a little better, and some of the parts just don't follow through as well as they could, either.
Something that really struck me was the sectioning - rather odd, a relic of how it was before, perhaps? Why does each paragraph, practically, get a new section headers? Why are they all h2s? Subsections are your friend. As it is, you should be able to, say, put the ones about how he got, defended, and lost his title together as one, I dunno, section about his title, maybe tacking the comeback attempt at the end of that, maybe not. But there may be other groupings, as well, just so it seems less broken up as an article. Like the quotes - why do the last two quotes have their own sections after a section specifically for quotes? Might as well user level three or even level four headers for those.
The names of the sections are a little inconsistent, too - most are formatted as noun phrases, except for the 'Loses Title', so it stands out. Another inconsistency - sometimes it says knockout, sometimes KO - I know they're the same thing, but not everyone will and which is used seems to be decided pretty much at random. Those are the main ones that I saw/could remember, but you'll probably want to check for other inconsistencies, especially when so many people helped.
I'd also like to complain about the presense of the cannibalsim template - there's very little cannibally about the guy in the article. So why's the template still there? Or do people just expect him to be cannibally for some reason that I don't know of because I don't actually know anything about him, either?
|Images:||6||Decent images, suit the article, though I only found the one about his attitude particularly funny. Others may just be taste, save the first, which just... young? Why's that funny? Can someone not insert a joke, perhaps?
Might be able to fit in a couple of others, too. Float the taller one(s) to the left, might even it out more, too. People do tend to be more inclined to read more visually appealing articles, I've noticed.
|Miscellaneous:||6.5||Score it got on VFH.|
|Final Score:||36.5||Yup, nice piece you've got here. No idea who actually put in what, so I just talked about what was there... anyway, at very least just make it prettier, and it will get featured, I expect. Could even if you don't, but why not make it better? I mean, better is better, after all... perhaps some of the rest of this will help as well, too. Hope it does, at any rate. Cheers.|
|Reviewer:||20:47, 31 December 2010|