Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Professor Layton

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 01:35, September 5, 2010 by Lyrithya (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit Professor Layton

Hello, This is my first article, and I feel it's rather... short. I would like general advice on how to make it longer and just outright funnier. I don't want any swearing in the article, though. Waaurufu 18:39, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Hopefully, it will even help. Anyhow, in one earth day, give or take a time zone and possibly a daylight savings time, you shall have your review. ~ Pointy (talk) (stalk) -- 20100904 - 01:14 (UTC)



Humour: 4 Firstly, I'd like to point out that I've never actually played the thing, thus I am basing this review entirely on the article with my only knowledge of its subject coming from the wikipedia article and a quick google search, so I apologise for whatever I miss. On the other hand, chances are many of your readers also won't be familiar with the thing, but that does not mean they should not get anything out of this article, just less than someone who specifically gets what the jokes are pointing at. But as this is an encyclopaedia, a function of articles is often to explain or in some fashion show what things are. It doesn't have to be even remotely accurate or useful, in fact articles around here rarely are, just accurate (or inaccurate) enough to satire the thing in question.

As you start out with explaining the literals of what it is, you might as well explain in more detail. Not necessarily accurate, of course... but specifics. Examples. Scenes from the thing that really demonstrate whatever your main point is, real scenes, twisted scenes, or completely made up ones. So long as it makes sense in the context of the article, you can do pretty much anything. Well, maybe not anything, but...

For the plot section, an easy way to make the thing longer would be to have subsections on each of the instalments of the game... you could even make up your own variations of them, based on the real ones or just common factors in the real ones. (for instance, the article on Dragon Age turns 'Gray Wardens' in 'Gay Wardens'). You have already mentioned how the guy is a gay paedophile, so why not expand on that? How does this affect things? Is that the premise of the games, for that matter, somehow connected to why they're solving all these puzzles? You never did specify what the point of the games is, that I could tell.

You may also want to explain more the overarching plot of the series - why, after all, is a gay paedophile going around solving things? Some backstory could well be interesting.


The gameplay section really seems to devolve too quickly into miffed player... I'd suggest making this section have some similar information to that of the wikipedia article's gameplay section but less boring, but I'm not even sure if that's possible beyond what you already tried. Although the bit about the other crazed lunatic placing the hint things around, that's not bad at all. If you could really play that up, like it's a great and powerful mystery, wonderful and divine and whatnot, it could be even funnier. Because, really, finding hint things that just give hints on whatever you happen to be working on? Out of this world, that. But after that, while it may be just me, it feels like this part gets too... eh, ranty.

But doing a reception thing might make a good way to conclude it... especially if you get at it from the standpoint of a fan trying to be encyclopaedic and finally just snapping, like the latter bit of the gameplay as it is now. Or something. On the other hand, some of what you mentioned in the gameplay could make for a good reception section - interviewing fans if you're not writing it as a miffed player, or explaining how critics liked it and clearly must not have actually played it because of [all the things wrong with it, the player snapping, etc]...

Concept: 3 The subject of this piece is clear. What you need to do is make it clear what you're doing with the subject. Currently, this reads more like an irritated commentary by a stuck player than an actual article. While it's possible that could actually work, you'll probably want to at least keep the encyclopaedic start. Work your way toward the miffed player approach, or just consistently throw in pieces about how it's terrible, not worth the money, full of plot holes, etc. You already have bits to whinge about to put toward this.

Really over do it, though, if you take that route. Caricatures are funny for a reason.

Prose and formatting: 5 As it starts out resembling a typical encyclopedia article, you really may as well make the format impeccable. Look how wikipedia articles format, what they say, how they say it, in what order, etc. The content will be a little different, but if it looks the same, it should emphasise whatever ensuing hilarity you go with.

Also, the use of 'you', 'we', the first and second person, it's not overly professional. If you decide to go for the miffed player thing I mentioned above it would probably be fine, but keep it to the irritated sections. And 'as we all know' is a hyperbole. Overusing hyperboles detracts from the impact of the great ones, so I'd advise not using them unless you have a really good reason.

And saying 'thankfully' indicates a fair amount of bias toward the player, like the player is writing this. While that might not be a bad thing here, you have to be careful what your diction connotes... and where.

Lastly, once you're happy with the article as a whole, you'll want to give it a proofread. If you must, you can also just get someone else to do it, though.

Images: 2 For the one image that is present, for the current caption - who is this they? Why would they be stamping it? Obviously, I'm missing something, probably due to being so unfamiliar with the thing, but even so... if it is from the game, make it more apparent. Perhaps say why it would be so bad, what would happen if it does get put there... something to make it funnier and contribute to the article itself.
As just a logo, though, it might work better to make it just part of an infobox on the game (although covers are often used for that as well) and leave the more stand-alone image format to bigger, more colourful stuff.

Which leads right into the fact that the article also just needs more images, and fortunately unlike on wikipedia, you may feel free to use whatever you feel like. Steal some game/movie/manga screenshots that back up whatever points you decide to make. If they don't back it up, make them back it up with clever or funny or whatnot captions or slight or even not-so-slight modifications. Maybe something depicting the steam-punk setting you described or something about the hint coins, and pictures of the characters - possibly one of the professor with his hat even bigger than usual... just for emphasis. Telling is one thing; showing quite another.

Miscellaneous: 4 Gut feeling average. But really, don't mind the numbers that much at this point; it's not a finished article yet. Worry about how to finish it.
Final Score: 18 Hopefully, you'll be able to use this for ideas and whatnot of how to make it a finished and well worth reading piece. And once you do have more, I really would suggest resubmitting it here.

Best of luck to you and the professor.

Reviewer: ~ Pointy (talk) (stalk) -- 20100905 - 01:35 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects