Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Side effects (resubmit)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Serious parts taken out, also explicit references to tv shows that people may not watch. New intro to the article. Took out a picture. There are "inside jokes" here, such as references to Colbert Report and Monty Python, but it doesn't really matter-- it's supposed to be weird humor, not an advertisement. Supposedly, you would think the side effects humorous even if you hadn't seen the shows related to them. --Cajek 20:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
|Humour:||7||Considerably better than last time. I especially like the opening skit, although I'm not sure exactly how that fits into an encyclopedia article. A little more work and there may be hope for the future yet.
While I do see the humor behind the Colbert and Python references, I should warn you against simply copying their stuff into your own article – I'm not sure if Uncyclopedia would consider that to be "original work". Maybe if you could expand on it and work it into your own thing – for example, try writing a detailed analysis of the side effects, in paragraph form, in a sort of serious medical-doctor style. It's a lot funnier that way, as well as more original.
And since you're using Monty Python, you probably should take a look at http://xkcd.com/c16.html ...
|Concept:||8||See original review.|
|Prose and formatting:||0||I'm sorry, as much as I like the concept and humor, the actual formatting just won't work. As I've said before, don't just put in flat-out lists – if you're going to use those, at least try to "flesh them out" a bit, or even better integrate them into a more encyclopedia article-type text. (Please do try to at least look over this section of UN:HTBFANJS and UN:LIST, they are useful resources.)
While the opening skit is truly brilliant, I think it might do better on UnScripts instead. I'm not sure if it's long enough to be a complete script, but talk with Gentleman Jacques and see what he thinks, since he's the UnScripts guy.
Again, great concept, and I definitely think the humor's better, but the formatting at least needs considerable work.
|Images:||5||OK, getting better, but is the Colbert image a copyright violation? I think what this article needs now (other than the formatting) is more original images, so check i.e. Uncyclopedia:RadicalX's Corner, or just play around with your favorite image editor – if you don't have a professional-grade one like Photoshop, I use and recommend GIMP, I run the Linux version but it's also available on Windows. It takes a while to learn, but it's worth it, and there are plenty of us here willing to help train you in the art of Potatochopping.|
|Miscellaneous:||5||Like I said earlier, mostly it's just those stupid lists. Oh, and maybe stay away from clichés like Star Wars references, those do get sorta old.|
|Final Score:||25||It's improved considerably, but honestly, those lists just have to go.|
|Reviewer:||Megalomaniac Martin “The Unfortunately Unfeatured” Ultima • (VOTE FOR ME!) • talk • (AND MY PICS TOO!) • contribs 22:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)|
Well, I said I'd review this, so here goes.
|Humour:||8||Actually, very funny, but about 85% of that humor lies in the top part. Lists can be funny, but generally paragraphs are better. I recommend not reading the article for 24 hours. Really. Read other stuff, go vote on VFH, whatever. Then, come back with a new perspective on comedy, and reread that article, with renewed eyes. You may notice what you find funny, what is not funny, and what could be funny with fixin'. Use this perspective to your advantage.|
|Concept:||8||Good concept, side effects certainly need a parody.|
|Prose and formatting:||5||A bit weak here. It's the damn lists, is what it is. You need to remove some big chunks from a few of those lists, as they can really ruin a page's appearance. Again, this is where the 24 hour thing comes in. Also, I'd recommend getting rid of those templates, they tend to be outdated and overused in this day and age.|
|Images:||6.5||Images themselves seem alright. However, the captions could really use some work. Always keep in mind that captions are a great place for one-liners, and always use that. I sometimes use them to continue a joke in the article, or add something totally new. Either way, try to get something that's L.O.L. funny, instead of just having captions for the sake of captions.|
|Miscellaneous:||6||Lists need some serious chopping down to size. Also, add more of an intro thing (full paragraph(s)) before and after each one. Those first two sections are soooo funny and promising, you really need to follow them up better.|
|Final Score:||33.5||I really feel like this one has a lot of potential. Just keep at it, be merciless with yourself about what is and isn't funny, and always avoid random humor and mémes. Remember, the best lists are the ones with more words and pictures than bullets. Don't be afraid to buckle down and write a full, humorous intro to each list. Also, time = funny. Rome wasn't built in a day, so your article may take some time. Either way, don't get discouraged, and good luck to ya!|
|Reviewer:||05:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)|