Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Scott's last expedition

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Scott's last expedition

Well, a new bit, in the style of a journal. I'm curious how it reads to anyone unfamiliar with the real Scott Expedition. Cheers, ----OEJ 12:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC) --OEJ 12:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Sycamore is currently pissing on your article--— Sir Sycamore (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Humour: 5 the article is currently very long which detracts from the Humour. I also think that the style has not done you many favours. Many of the entries are a lot funnier and relevant to the story, I don’t think these need to be pointed out. I like the way you filled the character of Scott out. The way you have the characters appearing feckless towards the trip is good; however the one line taglines are just not as funny as I think you intend them. I also think that many of the references are too random and silly. This is coupled with the excessive length which makes the page a bit of chore towards the end. Many of the entry’s seem more relevant that others which seem to be tacked on: like Jan 17 next to Jan 20th- it’s just a thought that maybe you have been to keen to cover a lot more than the humour value would allow
Concept: 5 An alright concept, The laughs that can be had here a little challenging as I would say the execution is hampered by one liners and a fairly Radom inconsistent style- the story could be kept in the diary style however it could be significantly shortened as there’s a lot of stuff that adds little to the piece. Benson references are a big no in my book and I would do away with any of that kind of stuff. I have found that all of the best pages I have done started out with an intention of being short, but grew a little bigger. Here I think you started out big and ended up with that, and I think that it does not work that well.
Prose and formatting: 4 the average VFH is around 1000 words, an average essay for university is between 2000-2500 words, you're currently sitting on over 3200. There’s a clue as to what needs to be done; get the chainsaw out. I saw multiple spelling errors as well as grammatical. The one liner’s are very messy even though this is a diary and should be somewhat untidy, I don’t think that kind of “realism” is something all that necessary- Still it is messy and is an unruly beast. I don't think that it will be any good for as long as it's this length. Picking out the errors and tiding shorter articles is much easer (whatever concept they may be) and this will prove an issue which I doubt you will resolve at this length.
Images: 6 Relevant, I did not see how they significantly added to the story well or the humour for that matter. All the images without fail look a bit flung in and add to the generally untidy look of the article. The Pineapple one was good. I think there’s not really the imagination here with the images, and this is something to consider revising, the added captions similarly add little.
Miscellaneous: 5 I think this article need some work, and although currently not the greatest of articles there is potential here.
Final Score: 25 Good luck, I hope this one can be turned around
Reviewer: --— Sir Sycamore (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Usually I don't contest reviews when they are negative. However, with respect to your comment "I saw multiple spelling errors as well as grammatical [errors]": The words yer, feck, Scandahoovian, wank, barstid, etc, should be easily recognized as slang. The term "sno-cone" is also spelled either "sno cone" or "snow cone". I chose the hyphenated version; it is common parlance. Dreamt, spoilt, and burnt are old-fashioned and British; again, this is intentional. I found one error: skiied. I corrected that. I find no other spelling mistakes. Try a spell-checker. It may miss perfectly good words like serac and haute cuisine, but that's a fault in the spell-checker and not in the prose.

I agree that the piece moves too slowly, and I'll work on that. However, I doubt that I will shorten it much. I encourage Uncyc writers to create articles that are longer and shorter than the norm. Many readers prefer short pieces, but a variety of article lengths -- as well as a variety of subjects, of styles, and of forms -- is healthy for Uncyclopedia. I've had a 3700-word article featured...and also a 680-word one. The important thing is to find the appropriate form and voice for the material, I think.

Now, get one thing clear: I respect your observations as a reader. Your opinion is utterly unassailable. What you perceived when you read the piece is what you as a reader perceived! No one can argue that. And I am indebted to you for writing down your observations. Thank you.

My thoughts as a writer on this particular piece run thus: The real journals of Scott's journey to the Pole describe a long arc of heroic tragedy. I've come to believe that effective satire should approximate the truth (slightly skewed). Mark Twain's most effective satirical work is often only a handsbreadth away from the sober facts. So I don't think a substantial story like the Scott expedition can be satirized well without including enough storytelling to recreate, in satirical form, the arc of the true story.

Therefore, my task as I see it is not to shorten the piece but to sharpen it: find what is most important in the real journals of the Scott expedition and convert that to satire. If done well, the result should -- to my mind -- convert the heroic tragedy into tragicomedy. But I don't see how it can be effective without enough narrative substance to complete the dramatic line of the story.

Thanks again for the review.

----OEJ 02:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal tools