Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Sherlock Holmes (3rd review)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Sherlock Holmes

Hopefully it has seen some improvements between two highly constructive reviews. MacManiasig.png MacManiasig-cheerios.png MacManiasig-holmes.png MacManiasig-starwars.png MacManiasig-firefly.png MacManiasig-pixar.png MacManiasig-oregon.png MacManiasig-lesmiz.png MacManiasig-doctor.png 16px-HalLogo.png Portal16px.png UncycLensFlare16px.pngDalek16px.png 16px-ChekhovSig.png16px-JapanSig.png Sir MacMania GUN 15:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take this one (if my other review hasn't put you off too much), but since it's quite a long article, may I extend it to 36 hours or something? --El Sid, the lazy oneparlez-vous franglais? 23:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I certainly don't mind. Brutal honesty is exactly what keeps me in check. Otherwise I'd be referring to Doctor Who in every single article I wrote. Oh, wait. MacManiasig.png MacManiasig-cheerios.png MacManiasig-holmes.png MacManiasig-starwars.png MacManiasig-firefly.png MacManiasig-pixar.png MacManiasig-oregon.png MacManiasig-lesmiz.png MacManiasig-doctor.png 16px-HalLogo.png Portal16px.png UncycLensFlare16px.pngDalek16px.png 16px-ChekhovSig.png16px-JapanSig.png Sir MacMania GUN[23:35 8 Aug 2009]
Humour: 9.5 Very funny throughout. You mix up comedic styles well - from farce to cultural observations to subtle hints about Sherlock's real character - without falling short of what you are trying to achieve and remaining very close to Holmes' real character. In fact you manage to exploit the fact that you can alter Holmes' non-detective character for the sake of comedy with full knowledge that only his detective side needs really to be satirised and discussed seriously, any other aspect can be used for more absurd purposes. My only criticism of the absurd section is perhaps it's a little too absurd at some point (particularly in the Biography section) without paying off comically, unless I am missing an observation or there is something about Holmes I am ignorant of. The self-reference (I mean to uncyclopedia), however, is consistently funny and used to very good effect.
Concept: 10 Excellent concept, makes full use of self-reference with a specific purpose while still being informative and funny. Satirises its predecessor well to add a whole new layer of comedy. In fact one of the things I most like about this article is its multi-layered aspect, the concept runs very deep and feels like it could offer something new upon each re-read. The idea of Watson writing the article as Sherlock does some investigation is excellent as both a technical device and portraying to us something authentic about the two characters as well as Uncyclopedian culture. The way you incorporate true aspects of Sherlock's character (his cocaine addiction for example) in a witty and original way is brilliant. Switching between the third-person narrative given by Watson and the dialogue between the two is particularly effective and written in such a way that the reader does not lose interest. In short, the concept is exceptional throughout, I have no suggestions for improvement.
Prose and formatting: 10 Well this ties to your concept, it is the physical execution of your concept obviously. There are no spelling mistakes (as far as I can see), very clear formatting generally, especially in the dialogue where the more dominant character is bolded and Watson is support. Everything is very tidy, there are no issues with your expression or writing style (which is excellent as usual). The imposters recurrence towards the end is a nice touch, especially the novel encore by Holmes during the Further Reading section. But that should be in concept I guess.
Images: 9.5 All excellent really, the mad hatter one took me a while to warm to but now I recognise it as another deft touch. The carbonite one had to be there in the intro, my only suggestion being that perhaps you should add another image in the biography. I won't make any suggestions, I'm sure you could think of something suitable, something educational and amusing. I can't improve the captions either.
Miscellaneous: 10 Rounded up because you deserve it. Essentially it is the application of excellent humour to an excellent concept with excellent prose and excellent images that make this a gem of an article.
Final Score: 49 All-in-all this is probably the best article I've peed upon yet. It is intelligent and well-composed without being unnecessary or redundant and somehow still being very very funny. It makes me feel pretty inadequate that I can't make any suggestions to improve it apart from get it on VFH now!
Reviewer: --El Sid, the lazy oneparlez-vous franglais? 12:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


Jesus, I didn't sleep well last night and I had to go through that 4 or 5 times to get rid of the bizarre spelling/grammar mistakes so apologies if you come across yet more --El Sid, the lazy oneparlez-vous franglais? 12:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects