Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Muammar Gaddafi
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Need pee, stat! EDiot 01:52, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
|Humour:||6.5||I like the variety of humour like "president foever" "68 years young" "gay wardrobe" etc... And the article starts off quite funny that way. There is a good sense of irony and political satire. "Fine man who knows how to have a good time" is also well placed and ironic. That being said, I find the humour then takes a bit of a fart joke dive for the rest of the article, which is a bummer cause you set it up so well and the text could easily tighten up to represent the well written humour of the intro.
The dive: Spawned from a hairy ass of a camel. Funny but not LMAO kind of funny. Ive always found that bathroom humour works well when placed in a way that warrants bathroom humour. Like in the middle of a really serious phrase such as "His entire tribe was gathered in a circle, talking about how to find water as it was running out, dealing with the right of accession, wondering in what tents to place which wives, deciding on who to make Moula of the tribe, when suddenly a sick Camel shat out a baby boy that immediately stood up and demanded the respect of everyone around him" or something like that. While that isn't super helarious itself, its a way to make bathroom humour funnier than just saying Ghadafi was born from a camels ass. This section continues with random bathroom humour, which is cute, but not funny. I really suggest either making the section witty, or making the bathroom humour justified (i.e. in the middle of something serious, or related well with things that are true or an unexpected punchline). For instance, saying that he is raped, its not LMAO funny, but saying that he was raped every time he cross dressed and his tribe took him for a lady, well, atleast its slightly funnier cause theres a reason to say he was raped. I like the scrapped knee gag. Is there any good reason to call him King shitpiss? Where does the scrotum thing come from? I like where you are going with the trying to start a war with Egypt. Its a good concept, expand it, try to make it funnier and more absurd each time. You could go on for a long while with it drawing in facts from history and showing how absurd he was a leader. The following paragraph is a little all over the place. Real facts (maybe too many dry facts about its histroy) interspersed with random and unrelated bathroom humour that doesnt gel too well with it. In my humble opinion its a lot better to keep really dry facts to a minimum (all thats nessesary to keep the narative running) and intersperse it just at the right moment with ironic humour (and if its bathroom humour then related to the story, not just random). The same goes for the rest of the section. I like the civil war section. Theres a skeleton of historical facts, exadurated to an extreme laced with funny jabs. I think it could be tightened (a little less of a rant and more of a funny narative) but this is well structured. The last section, funny at moments and with good irony would be all the more funny if the three different ideas (socialism, aids and american idol) where separated into distinct sections (even if just a paragraph each) and developed just a little more. Which leads to concept, which is expanded on more in a later section. The humour is there, it just needs to be brought out better. you obviously have a great sense of irony and humour, but it would come across way better, even give laugh out loud moments if you put more time and thought into the development of each gag and the whole concept of the article.
|Concept:||1||Dont take this bad, but I just dont see a concept in this article. Any GREAT article (not good, not even "not too shabby" but GREAT article has a clear concept that rings its way though the whole thing. A simple concept like "a copy and parody of a wikipedia style article" is one worth building on. Make it really seem like a biography style article from wikipedia, including history, early years, rule, personal life etc... but even then it needs a consistant conceptual angle such as "he isnt how he really appears" or your whole "hes fucked up but a nice guy who knows how to have a good time" but make that clear throughout the whole article. Otherwise its a bunch of funny gags all rolled into a bunch of paragraphs meshed together, which is funny but not LOL! Other concept posibilities include "conspiracy" or "hes in the closet" or "there isnt really even a war" etc... there are lots of angles or even two angles can be put into an article if it makes sense and you can balance them out well and clearly, but the article, to be LOL needs a clear concept, clearly written into the whole article. :)
I also find a good intro ends well, leaving the audience wanting to read the rest of the article. Ask yourself, how could I write the last sentence of the intro (and your intro is really good, the best part of the article) to get them to continue with the rest? Cliffhanger? Unfinished joke? Radical change with a ...? There are lots of ways. Think about it.
|Prose and formatting:||7.5||Prose is good. Random use of shit etc... could use some work.|
|Images:||4||The first image is really good, arogant pompous Ghadaffi. The other two are just stock images of Ghadaffi. Maybe find some more images showing how arogant he is. Or, if you decide to incorporate a concept, put in images relating to that concept. If you go with the whole "he knows how to have a good time" show him smiling. If you go with a "closet cross dresser" ask Zombie Baron or other image chopper volunteers to chop a photo of him in a dress (or try yourself). Images make an article for me.|
|Miscellaneous:||10||I add a ten cause this article is begging to be LOL and could be if you take time and add a concept, think more about the bathroom humour and write the whole thing like you write your intro. This could even be featured if you do this.|
|Final Score:||29||Good luck, dont forget, time time time, concept concept concept, well placed humour well placed humour well placed humour.|
|Reviewer:||--22:16, April 19, 2011 (UTC)|