Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/New York Rangers
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Shingraham 18:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
|This article is under review by|
Sayeth Gerry: shotgun!!
|Humour:||1.9||average of sections
eh, not a particularly grabbing introduction. i'd be unlikely to continue reading this article were i to stumble across it, and i am quite the hockey fan. you do mention the rangers are a band of superheroes, which might be a good underlying theme, but the name-dropping and random violent referneces (barbarians, brutal habits) weaken the article.
okay, this seems to be a narrative about ulf. without proper background either, you just claim he drunkenly wandered into a rangers practice. it is funny that you claim the 97 rangers were languishing, when they in fact won the stanley cup three years previous, but the rest of this section contains little more than a generic 'ulf is awesome, he drinks and fights' rant.
this section really could be incorporated into the previous section.
this is just a long, violent account of nothing. you need more than a narrative consisting of things like reasons why people beat each other. try to flesh it out and bring in other aspects besides violenece.
i don't know what to make of this. it's an account of many other players, mostly continuing with the same vein of violence and drinking. you do get a point for the avery antics, but when you break down into a song, it gets pretty much unreadable. oh, and don't sign articles.
ah. further songs. again, this is really not the forum for songs you made up to existing tunes about the rangers former players. it's extremely hard to read and i can't see a way you could keep it in this article. perhaps recording these songs would work, if you were inclined to do so.
your ending is another narrative involving excessive alcohol consumption and violence. you need to grab onto a theme and run with it, but a theme of 'player X got wasted and started fights' gets stale super-fast, becaseu it is so common.
|Concept:||5||5/5 for a well-known subject worthy of parody.
0/5 for execution. i can't say you had any underlying theme or 'point' to this whole article. perhaps if you ran with something like 'the rangers are a group of crimefighting superheroes' you might have something, but as it is you rely on fighting and drinking to provide the majority of your humor, and they don't deliver. try to branch out and see if you can flesh out another way to tie the article together.
|Prose and formatting:||4||you have large blocky text paragraphs, a ton of capitalized quotes with many exclamation points, and spelling/grammar errors galore. i'd be happy to help you with these things if you so desire, but it's quite a bit of work, so i want to make sure you're going to keep with it before i put a large amount of effort into it.|
|Images:||0||no images. at least get the logo, MSG, the players, a hockey stick or zamboni...something!|
|Final Score:||13.6||much of this reads like an article on ulf samuelsson. perhaps you should transform this into just that and work on it at Ulf Samuelsson. otherwise, you need more about the rangers in general: team history, great moments, that sort of thing. for a hockey-related example, check out Gerry Cheevers. i think that with a lot of streamlining and a new direction, this article could rise from its current state to at least attain the title of 'adequate'.|
|Reviewer:||20:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)|
Response to the review: I can't figure out this site and i'm not wasting 8 hours finding a way to respond to your review so i'm just writing here. I do appreciate that you took the time to do a review. Unfortunately the type of humor i use in my article isn't something you like. You seem to repeatedly reference your distaste for random violence and insanity which is more of a personal opinion than a review of the work itself and it shows in your whole review. I was hoping the reviewer would either find this humorous or at least take the content for what's it worth and rate it with an eye to the target audience which you failed to do and it taints the whole review. I was not trying to create a hockey article, I was making a wild, uncyclopedia account of what a hockey team could be. I make no attempt to hide that violence and etc is the main feature of the article. In fact I point it out in my opening paragraph.
Anyone who DOESN'T like that can just look away but someone who does like it would read on and laugh through most of the article. If you knew how to improve on that kinda humor it would be one thing but all you did was tell me my article was bad because it features brutality and drinking which just isn't true. Those things don't make the article bad. If i wrote poorly then that would make them bad (in some spots it is so I will go back eventually and fix it). Take Slap Shot the movie is insane and filled with stereotypes and a small story about masturbating in the penatly box. that doesn't have anything to do with hockey but if you take the sports comedy for what it's worth you come up with possibly the greatest hockey movie ever. If the ideas were unfunny and unoriginal that would make it bad but I know from all the personal feedback i've gotten that it works and it works reaaaally well when the right audience reads it. There's a 'mindless violence' demographic out there trust me.
If you have suggestions for improving the way I presented the fighting, drinking and violence i'd appreciate that. I can see ways I can improve it myself but with school I haven't been able to get back to the article in some time so for now it remains just a small taste of unrefined insanity. I was hoping for a review which helped me find ways to improve on the insanity. The Rangers article is a fictionalized account of a fake Ulf Samuelsson and a fake account of a Rangers teams' rise to power. Some teams like Anaheim and those wonderful Cheifs from Slap Shot won the cup after becoming insanely physical which is slightly what i'm parodying.
Criticizing the historical accuracy of this article (or any article on uncyclopedia) just doesn't make sense. Most hockey articles on here seem to focus greatly on the truth but they're also pretty unfunny. I took an opposite approach and since this is uncyclopedia I don't get why anyone would criticize any article for doing that. Yes it's true that only small bits of my article are based on reality but most articles on uncyclopedia are only loosely based on reality. I feel like you completely wasted your time reviewing the article because you focused on personal opinion on the content instead of focusing on ways to improve the content or the writing.
I get it (because you said it a million times) you personally didn't like the type of humor used. As for the mannerisms section...if you have a better way to present all of this stuff i'd love to hear it. I have a whole fictionalized decade of 'Rangers hockey' planned. I allude to this decade of 'Rangers domination' both at the beginning of the article and all throughout this section. I present it in no particular order but it's easy to read and understand what im presenting, which is insanity. As for the songs, I can envision people downloading the songs and singing along with the new lyrics to see if it works and they might have a good time doing it. It's very easy to skip away from this section so I felt it was very low risk putting the songs on the article since there is a very large humor reward for the person who does get into it. Again if you have ways to make the songs better you should have suggested them but telling me the article was bad because songs were in it was just a waste of time and didn't help me figure out ways to improve that particular section. Also I said they languished in last for much of the century which was very true. "Once since 40, once since 40". I will eventually go back and do a 1940-96 section about how the Rangers were a league laughingstock but the main payoff of the article is craziness.