Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Phrase

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Phrase

I started this page some time ago, didn't bother about putting it on PEE. Any thoughts? --nldr 17:12, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

I'll do this later tonight. It'll be done by tonight or tomorrow --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 15:23 EST 4 Mar, 2010
ta --nldr 20:24, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
Finishing up now, will be done soon. --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 16:50 EST 5 Mar, 2010
Humour: 9.25 The way I review, I generally put the majority of my comments and suggestions in the humor section. This allows me to be lazy keep all of my thoughts organized. I'll give you my first impressions after one read through and then go in for a more detailed look.

Initial Impressions

This article started off fairly slow, but quickly got extremely entertaining from this point {"Well, well, well, well. The game is up. What's all this then? 'ello 'ello 'ello.") onwards. From then on I thought this was a work of pure genius, I'm not even kidding. There is very little for me to be critical of outside of the introduction and the first half of the usage section.

More Detail


The introduction came off as very vague, long-winded, and poetry-like. It felt like "arte por el arte" to borrow from Latin American Modernism. I wouldn't be so cruel as to bring up say, Vogon poetry, but seriously, read some of Rubén Darío's bullshit it's pretty sickening. One poem is entirely devoted to swans. To quote, "¡Oh Cisne! ¡Oh sacro pájaro! Si antes la blanca Helena del huevo azuel de Leda brotó de gracia llena, siendo de la Hermosura la princesa inmortal..." He's saying something along the lines of, "Oh Swan! Oh sacred bird! If before the white Helen (of Troy) sprang forth from the egg of Leda." Makes me want to puke. Now, I'm definitely not saying what you have is anywhere near that caliber of terrible, but my point is that latin American modernist poetry was simply made for the sake of sounding artsy. The point I'm trying to make is that you take your introduction a little too far in getting the point across, and it may be long enough to drive away readers before they get to the pure gold you have below.

I would shorten you introduction considerably, you can make the same overall joke of describing the concept of phrase with short phrases with a lot less than you have. What you do so well below is use actual cultural phrases mixed with literary devices, and you form a cohesive progression from it. Pure genius. I would try an incorporate the absolute cleverness displayed later on in your article in your introduction so you can rope in the most readers possible.


The story is clever, very clever, but there is a marked difference imo from the text before the line I quoted under 'Initial Impressions' and afterward. The difference being, of course, beforehand is less funny that afterward. I really don't have much to offer int he way of suggestion for how to do this, mostly because I think you don't need to change much since the "phrases" you use delicately form the story you've crafted, however, I think you would do well to examine just what it is that is so darn funny about everything after the first part of this section and see if you can't add just a little bit of that to the first half of this section.

Everything else

I honestly and truly think this is absolutely hysterical from a high brow humor standpoint. I love how you incorporate phrases into a progression in which you juxtapose literary devices like metaphors within your phrases. There's just something so perfect about using phrases in the form of metaphors to explain to the reader how metaphors can be types of phrases. It's mind blowing really if examine it from afar. I'm just afraid perhaps the average user won't pick up on just how awesome your article is. I think my favorite sections were 'Mixed Metaphors' and 'Oxymorons'.

Although, I wasn't quite sure what Shakespeare's section was all about...

This is a very funny article to me, and I don't really think there much you need to do humor-wise outside of the introduction, very nice job, I think this is the highest humor score I've given in a review to date.

Concept: 9 As I said earlier, the way you go about this is awesome. It's not just that you use only phrases in the article on "phrase" it's that use use types of phrases to describe those very phrases. That my friend is very clever, and what's more, you do it very well. I was very impressed by how naturally everything fit together considering you were using popular phrases one after another, especially in the later sections when you use, for example, phrases that are popular metaphors to describe the concept of mixed metaphors. Really, this is just great.

As I touched on earlier though, the introduction is very long-winded and has the potential to drive away readers under the concept of tldr. working on cutting down the introduction will be a good step to making this a great article.

Prose and formatting: 8.5 You do a pretty good job here with using only/mostly phrases to write your entire article on "phrase" For that reason, some grammar errors are obviously ignorable, since phrases sometimes aren't sentences. With that said, I did notice some slight punctuation errors, mostly dealing with commas, and there was one sentence (I don't recall where) that started with a lower case letter.

A pet peeve of mine as well deals with section headings and pictures. It certainly isn't a requirement and most people don't think it's a big deal, but I really don't like it when headings are up against the side of pictures. In my own articles I often add a little bit of white text, usually saying "spacing" or something like that, so that the section heading falls below the picture and hugs the left of the article. I think it's just more pleasing to the eye that way. Your "Mixed Metaphors" section heading is a good example of this, and honestly it looks like adding a single line of blank spacing ought to do the trick. Again, completely my opinion/obsessive pet peeve, so feel free to ignore it.

Images: 7.75 I'll go through each image and caption and tell you my thoughts on them:
  • I felt the castle image didn't really fit into the style you had chosen in writing this article. It feels out of place, if that makes any sense. The caption as well doesn't seem to reflect what's going on with the rest of the article, in terms of both text and the in the captions of the other pictures. Perhaps finding some kind of abstract picture and claiming it's a phrase in picture form would be better, just a quick idea. I would be in favor of dropping this picture and finding something else for an introduction image.
  • The picture is average, but with the caption it quickly becomes one of my favorite in the article. I chuckled to myself when I read the caption. It's funny in an almost non sequitur sort of way. I wouldn't change anything about this picture, except perhaps making it larger by 50 pixels, but that's about it.
  • Very nice illustration of a classic oxymoron. I think I actually remember that image from a children's book. not much more to say about this one, so, moving on...
  • OK, so I kinda don't get this one. I chalk that up to being culturally retarded. I'll go with the benefit of the doubt that there's some sort of cultural reference going on here that people smarter than I will find very funny. It could also be a British thing, those fellows look sort of British...
  • This one is incredibly stupid, but made me laugh none the less. The caption is a perfect pairing with the section and the picture. I can almost hear some smug Frenchman in the background going, "uh hou hou" in that stereotypical French laugh.
  • With the caption this picture greatly reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_N1OjGhIFc. I don't know why really, but good stuff!
  • same as above in the humor, not so sure I understand the Shakespeare joke
Miscellaneous: 8.5 my level of enjoyment from reading this article.
Final Score: 43 Very good article, I enjoyed it quite a bit. I would encourage you to do the following in order to improve this article:
  • redo or greatly shorten the introduction
  • pick a different introduction image and caption
  • go through and hunt down small grammar problems
  • re-evaluate the Shakespeare section

If you have any questions or comments about this review or anything in general, please don't hesitate to drop me a line.

Reviewer: --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 08:20 EST 6 Mar, 2010
Personal tools