Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Six Hats (second time)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Second time for this one. I've made some amendments as suggested in the first time around. Pup t 05:36, 24/07/2009
Reviewing. MacMania 13:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
|Humour:||8.5||All right. Breaking this down by section:
Intro. It's very nice. There are some witty quips, and they're not laugh-out-loud, but it holds my interest.
Underlying principles. Mostly exposition, and does incite a smirk.
Parallel thinking. By this time the smirk's turned into a big grin. We're going into definite satire territory, with people laughing at their silly hats and "business intelligence."
Strategies and Program(me)s. I like the foodstuff stuff, but what really merited a laugh was the escalation technique in Example Program(me)s (although I still can't believe you omitted indigo!). While I did, however, stop short of looking back at the list of hats to see what all of the exact sequences meant, I did look at some, and the Christmas function program(me) is hilarious.
Note that I can't decide how to spell program(me).
Types of hats. I started to actually laugh in this section. Liked the green hat picture. In fact, the green hat and blue hat stuff were good. Personally I thought it was a very funny section. Although in my opinion it would be better if you'd written a fitting sentence or two before the tumbleweed on the White Hat, it's adequate as is.
Application method. Ha. Personally I'm not a big fan of shock-value comedy, but I think other people might like it better. Verging dangerously on nonsense, though.
Summary. Basically you indict corporate ladders, which is quite nice, and at least smirk-inducing.
Publication data. Have you thought about adding more? Perhaps a footnote by Hewitt-Gleeson advertising one of his own books?
See also. Yeah, it's fine.
References. And here you run into the ground the joke of Michael Hewitt-Gleeson, and include several other ones. I think running a joke into the ground works quite well here.
Solid humour overall, although there were relatively few moments that had me laughing until I choked.
|Concept:||8||I would say this is a quite recognisable concept, or at least the myriad of attempts to improve group thought are quite recognisable, and satirising it is a solid idea with a lot of potential, a good deal of which you appear to have realised.|
|Prose and formatting:||8||Spelling and grammar are fine except for some spelling errors in the last few main sections. (I spotted four or five. Can you beat my score? The ones I found were: in Application method: uncapitalised "six hats", non-plural "Six Hat", and "s sceptre" rather than "a sceptre"; in Summary: "Bosses" rather than "Boss's". The fifth one has apparently left my list before being posted on this review. Maybe also capitalise "learning" in "Green hat -- Alternatives and learning"). References are long, but I see they have been tidied up a lot since the last review, so they're fine, at least in my opinion.|
|Images:||9||Book cover works well, although apparently your use of MS Paint and a very large image have both caused the smaller text to blur. Ah well, little you can do about it. Probably technical issues. Making it into a GIF from the JPG was a good move, as JPG tends to blur any small text. I feel like it may work better at the top of the page, though. Maybe also add an image for Strategies and Program(me)s. Hat images work very well (for the grey hat, the use of Van Gogh seems either ironic or irrelevant depending on interpretation). Application method was smirk-inducing as well. I have a feeling that the tumbleweed image is slowly becoming overused, but as it is it's fine.|
|Miscellaneous:||8.5||This is a very long article, and anyone who looks at the scroll bar before he/she starts to read might be daunted. But the quality of this article is solid.|
|Final Score:||42||Very good work, and you've obviously put a good deal of time into poking fun at this concept. Personally I don't know how this could be significantly better, except for very, very minor adjustments, since it is in very good shape as is. Either this is a really good article, or I'm overenthusiastic, though I'd bet on the former. Either way, I like it.|
|Reviewer:||MacMania 14:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)|