From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
It is an article I rewrote 90% of the content, I realize it is a bit long, give me your opinion! Mattsnow 05:50, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
|Humour:||6||So first of all, good work on this so far. There are a few areas I think you should take another look at however. You say this is a rewrite; well, I can tell. There's still quite a bit of what we call "city-cruft", and just other weaker things that I'm guessing are left over from the old version. To begin with, there are too many opening quotes. It's hard to get an opening quote to work well, because they don't have much of a set up. It has to be a very specific kind of joke that you can tell in just one line. It requires a hell of a lot of wit. None of these are really worth keeping in my opinion, although the one about ancestral lands was mildly amusing, I guess.
Generally, the intro is a bit all over the place; it's confusing and reads like it's been written by several people - which may in fact be the case. It's definitely the weakest part of the article. A lot of the time it's hard to know what you're talking about; you assert several things but the problem is they're all a bit vague. Eg. you say the population "had a rebellious attitude", but what do you mean by this? And also that "they tend to see themselves as a distinct society" - how so? Again, it's vague.
Then we have a big list, I'll spare you the lecture on how lists are lazy and unfunny and just jump straight to the "city-cruft". This list epitomises that very well. It's all stuff that doesn't really make sense to people who don't know the area, and even to those who do it's nothing more than a cheap dig at the citizens/neighbours. Jokes about the hotness of the women and "the way people walk" - do you know how many cities you could say that about? The article does it in such a generic way that it isn't funny and really could apply to any geographical location. It's not a million miles away from the old "black people drive like this and white people drive like this" routine really, is it?
It's a common error in comedy that simply mentioning drugs is funny (although a lot of pot-heads seem to agree), but it's not, you have to make a joke just like with all other subjects. Throughout the article, but especially in the intro, there are unhumorous references to drugs that aren't as successful as they could be. Just saying "it will stone you for days," for instance isn't funny. I really enjoyed your later line "he started producing more smoke than a dragon", for an example of how to do this well. So go back and have a look at the drug references, and either rework them or remove them if you can't.
Another thing I want to talk about is parenthesis (brackets) jokes. These don't really work either, at least, not as much as a good prose-based turn. Shoving the "funny" bit at the end in brackets is predictable and has no flow at all, which is ridiculously important for comedy writing. To use my stock example, it's better to say, "John Candy was a kind man; the size of his heart was only matched by the size of his stomach," than it is to say, "John Candy had a big heart (because he was fat)". Not a hilarious example, but I hope you see what I mean (although he was Canadian so it is strangely apt). A good bit of misdirection, or an unexpected twist, is far more effective than lugging the punchline in a set of brackets.
After the intro, you really hit your stride. Some of the stuff I say above still applies but generally it is much better. I will take you through section by section because I have a couple of comments I'd like to make.
Quebec City Founded
The British Victory
River of the Wolf
Finally, I would lose the big language section. It doesn't really make much of a joke (unless you want to revise it, but I don't think there's much potential in it myself).
|Concept:||7||I think I've said enough about this already. What you have is pretty good, there isn't a finite concept but for such a broad entry you don't really need that. There are recurring jokes about drugs and the language barrier, which are good, and then less successful ones about the beauty of the women and communism, which don't really work. The "hotness of women" jokes could apply to virtually any place in the world and aren't funny anyway, and the communist jokes have been done to death and don't really make sense upon close analysis. All the article really needs is a bit of a tidy up in respect to things like this.|
|Prose and formatting:||8||Generally you have quite a loose, informal tone that works quite well. I would be careful to keep it consistent, however. Occasionally you swear suddenly, or address the reader directly, and things like this ruin it.
Apart from those, there were a number of spelling errors and typos, some of which I corrected. There are bound to be others though because I wasn't looking all that closely; give it a thorough proofread, and don't forget to proof any new parts you write.
Ok, so formatting next. Is there any reason you didn't use subheadings for the cities? Looks a bit messy. Then there's a bit where you do these weird little arrow things - "Maurice «Rocket» Richard" - what are they? I've never seen them before in all my days. The first list about agriculture in the Economy section isn't very well formatted. Try to simplify this or perhaps use a table. You might also want to take another look at your "end products" jokes, as some of them seem a bit silly (hmm, that comment should really go in the humour section).
|Images:||8||The images are good, but you could use a few more considering the length. My only gripes are with the first few images. The poutine one is nowhere near grand enough for an opening image, you need something that establishes your concept. Also, you don't really explain what poutine is until about ten paragraphs later so it doesn't make much sense here. The one of the girls is a bit generic, if you had a section specifically on women it might work there but I wouldn't put it in the intro.|
|Miscellaneous:||7||Overall quality, not considering the unreached potential. Sorry if there are a lot of typos in this review, the computer I'm using is shite.|
|Final Score:||36||Overall a solid effort, and it's great to see an important article getting the care it deserves. I would say you carry on with what you're doing; sort out the intro and perhaps trim some of the weaker sections. It may also be worth getting some more jokes in there. If there's anything I've said here that you want me to explain better, or if you want my opinion on anything I might have missed, or even if you're just lonely, please let me know on my talky page and I'll try to help. Keep up the good work and I hope the review is ok.|
|Reviewer:||--Black Flamingo 11:26, June 11, 2011 (UTC)|