Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Pedobear

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 18:33, October 12, 2009 by ChiefjusticeDS (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Pedobear

Could somebody pee on Pedobear? Thanks! Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 04:45, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

I'm in here now, look for the review's coming on sunday, or maybe tonight. It will be faster than Gandalf at any rate. --ChiefjusticeDS 16:58, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much! I'm sorry I volunteered you I didn't mean to. I don't think Why? will be happy because you're tied for most Pee Reviews! lol j/k Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 17:06, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
Right, review time. Also, I think that no matter who does more reviews this month Uncyclopedia is the winner here. Being a person of integrity I think that we should work to satisfy the writers needs rather than engage in- I WILL WIN! I HAVE TO WIN!!! --ChiefjusticeDS 11:13, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
I said no matter who does the most reviews "Uncyclopedia wins" first! I said it first! I WIN! I WIN! (Seriously, as I told ChiefjusticeDS, I think we both were bothered by the huge backlog and so were some others. We've already more than doubled the number of Pee Reviews that were done all of last month.) WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 05:56, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
Humour: 6 This is a challenging one to review, partly because of the sheer length of the article and partly because of the way the humour is presented. My enduring feeling as I read through your article was that, yes, this is generally amusing, no, it isn't enough to keep me interested for the entire article. You have to appreciate that in long articles the humour aspect becomes tantamount to the article's success. If the article isn't immediately seizing readers, very few will stick around for the latter parts. While your article holds a huge amount of humour for people who are familiar with the character (I did some research for this one) it holds infinitely less for others. For those unfamiliar with the subject matter some parts of the article seem more like nonsense than anything else. Take your 'Beginning' section, the jokes are all perfectly valid and the section solicited a smile from me, but the problem is that you begin to trip over yourself and introduce new people and new themes without much warning and readers can be swept away by this. Essentially you need to simplify things or you are in danger of even losing fans of the character, this has a very adverse effect on your humour. I found myself reading and the text seemed to be making a joke, which I was certain would be funny if I was sure where and why all the strands of the joke meshed together. This is more a problem later on in the article. Early on you have a couple of regular humour difficulties, the first of these is being random, randomness is absolutely fine, but I would caution against getting too carried away, the article can be more amusing if everything seems feasible, rather than just selected parts. Your section on 'Toys and Santa Claus' is a good demonstration of this, you should go back and remember that, without some kind of feasibility, an encyclopaedic take on the character doesn't work as well as it could. For example if you say something like "Darth Vader and Santa campaigned for human rights throughout the latter half of the 20th century" it is vaguely amusing but so obviously made up that most people will see it as slightly amusing in that section, but a detriment on the article as a whole. Something better would be "Darth Vader was one of the most recognised figures in the fight for human rights throughout the second half of the 20th century, he once stated to the media that 'only the galactic empire had the authority to oppress and maltreat." That is better because while still obviously fictional it does make some reference to something that is well known about Darth Vader. For you, you should try to avoid making references to well known events and then completely changing the story behind them, you should instead try to work your character into existing events, you do this with some success in the article and should work on replicating it. Ultimately your biggest drag factor here is that the randomness sometimes goes too over the top, take a look at the HTBFANJS section on randomness for some pointers.

Overall on this point you have written an amusing article but need to work at making all the different parts come together and make more sense as it seems as though you are trying to cram as much in here as you can, and neglecting to quality check the some of it.

Concept: 9 Your concept is fine and your tone is likewise, you have chosen the correct tone for the article in the encyclopaedic tone and you do excellently a pulling this off throughout. Your jokes are, for the most part, subtle enough to fit in with the tone, but you should be careful about losing the tone. You do slip from it a couple of times in the article. However the way you slip from it is far more subtle than is normal. You begin to write in a way that isn't explanatory, you write analytically and suggest alternatives. However this is very borderline and not a massive problem. I'm just very picky.
Prose and formatting: 8 Your spelling and grammar is fine, all I would recommend is that you carefully take another look through to make sure that your sentences are all constructed correctly and you catch any remaining typos. Your formatting is OK, but I would urge you to go back and have a second look at your image formatting. At some points in your article your images appear to be squeezing the text into the centre and you should try to rectify this as best you can. Try to make sure there is some vertical space between each image, regardless of the side of the page it is on.
Images: 9 Nothing to criticise here, the mark comes off for image formatting difficulties.
Miscellaneous: 8 My overall grade of the article.
Final Score: 40 Overall you have written a good, solid article and you are only running into problems when it comes to pulling all the various parts of the article together. If you spend a little time rectifying those problems then you will have done just about all there is to do. If you have any questions, comments or requests then feel free to ask me on my talk page. I would also encourage you to try to get an informal second opinion from someone else, just to make sure you catch any problems that I may have missed, or just not seen as problems. Good luck making any changes.
Reviewer: --ChiefjusticeDS 12:36, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks for your review! But I have like a ton of questions. I know it's long, but is it too long? "some parts of the article seem more like nonsense than anything else." what parts other than the beginning? "trip over yourself and introduce new people and new themes without much warning" I don't know what this means, sorry! "For you, you should try to avoid making references to well known events and then completely changing the story behind them" I'll think about this thanks! You said parts are random what parts? "you should be careful about losing the tone. You do slip from it a couple of times in the article" where do I slip from the tone? "squeezing the text into the centre and you should try to rectify this as best you can" Ok thanks I'll work on that! You're a great reviewer but really some more specifics would really help me. Thanks! Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 18:30, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
See your talk page for my response. --ChiefjusticeDS 18:33, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects