Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Pulitzer Prize
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
One of my submissions for the Poolitzer, funnily enough --Knucmo2 11:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'll do this one. Review is partly done. --Nachlader 12:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
|Humour:||7||Most of the humour seems to derive from the "current awards" list, which is unfortunately a list of one-liners, but it's not the sort of thing that would warrent an editing out. Only that of the sections that actually inhabit a paragraph or two, the humour is somewhat awkward at times.
"( [...] but who listens to a creed who professes to believe in nothing, whilst still believing that there is such a thing as Nihilism!)" is kind of weird. I can see what you did there. But that kind of approach of humour in an Uncyclopedia article, I've always found that sort of thing incredibly out of place. At least lose the illustration mark. Also. in the introduction paragraphs: "According to Wikipedia, 'The ability to create fiction is... one of the defining characteristics of humanity'. It is refreshing to see Wikipedia get it right for once.". O-okay? I would suggest making the humour in this article less... awkward.
However, the article does have it's good parts. Not much to depend on the images, but they do their job.
|Concept:||7||Uncyclopedia needs an article on the Pulitzer Prize, I guess, even if it understands the award as the "Poo Lit Suprise". The article nonetheless barely holds it's own against the Poo Lit, I know what I'd prefer as a parody to the real life journalistic award, but this article is commendable in some ways. As well as being an actual article other than just an award given to people on the site. The concept could do more than just two sections and a sizable list, I bet.
The article could do with a section on the founder, Joseph Pulitzer, to preclude the "current awards" and therefore salvage some independence from lists for the prose of the article.
|Prose and formatting:||7||Perfectly acceptable. It tends to be propped up by the list of a "current awards" section, but there are a few paragraphs.
You could at least field a different example to Wynton Marsalis, or just get rid of the red link. Red links look depressing. Also, it seems you've forgotten about the "notes" section at the foot of the page. Adding some references with the <ref></ref> tags could make for a one-liner opportunity (as if the "current awards" section hasn't enough anyway).
|Images:||7||Three images supplied, although a bit boring, but adequate. A fourth image, of an actual awards ceremony perhaps, wouldn't hurt. The captions fair well at least. Having only two pictures of winners doesn't do much to underline this as an award given to journalists. Maybe the fourth image could be of another winner? I wouldn't know much about American journalists however.|
|Final Score:||35||An adequately adequate article, even if I sound a little generous. I don't know about the listings for the Poo Lit Suprise nominees, as this (school) computer has decided to block the pages, but I'd say this article should manage okay on it's own.|
|Reviewer:||--Nachlader 09:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)|