Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Soma©

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Soma©

Dear grand masters, here's someone else's article I rescued from the Huff Bin. Anyone is welcome to have a go at it, and I'm all ears. Could use any help on this, to make as good as possible. Don't want to have NO Soma on Uncyclopedia. God forbid! That's the first word most people look for!?? Cheers!!! Funnybony 19:31, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing this. In the words of one great reviewer: I'm here, in 24 hours. ~Scriptsiggy.JPGTelephonesig Star Starsig Kidneysig 13:00, Jan 26, 2010
Humour: 5 General comments:
  • So yesterday I was reading this, and I was thinking that you should place the "ingredients" in another paragraph separate from the lead, which you did today, which is great. So I gather that soma can mean two things: the divine Hindu drink, and the modern muscle relaxation (and recreational) drug carisoprodol. Thing is, you have to make sure you know which one you are referring to in which parts, and keep the structure of your article organised. Current structure is like this:
Lead: Hindu
Ingredients and Usage: Modern
Hindustani and History: Hindu
Current and Effects: Confusing
Falsies, Pros and Cons and the rest: Modern

While I think you should arrange them so that the sections that deal with the same thing are together. For instance, after talking about the drug's significance in the Vedic texts and it's implications to India's history, only then you say something like, "==Modern Soma== Dr. Timothy Leary has concocted a formula for synthetic soma so on and so forth..." I think this helps make your article less random.

  • Random humour is always a problem when you write drug articles. That's why they get huffed often. While your article is not horrendously random, it definitely is random in some parts. To make this article really good, you have to avoid falling into the trap that bad drug articles fall into.
  • Your style is very inconsistent, but I assume that you're trying to write in an encyclopedic style. If not... I still suggest you write in the encyclopedic style anyway. A formal tone helps your article look less random. When you deal with subjects such as Hindu Literature and chemistry, you should probably be formal. Then you can contrast this tone with the occasional "drug induced escapade" as a vehicle for comedy.
  • Why is soma copyrighted? The trade name for carisoprodol, Soma, is probably copyrighted, but the Soma mentioned in the Vedic texts is probably not. If you have the copyright in the title, in my opinion it should only deal with the modern soma, and maybe mention the Hindu soma in passing, such as: "Soma is named after a celestial drink in ancient India." On the other hand, do you feel that the "copyright" adds comedic value to the article? I think you usually include that symbol if you satirise things like consumerism, which you didn't. So to me it feels like the symbol doesn't have a purpose, and I think it should be removed.

Lead-in

  • I don't think Indian mythology is aka Hinduism. Should be "and".
  • I didn't find the censors (and the words underneath them) very funny. I think your jokes should be presented in a different way, or you should find different things to joke about. The same goes for the censors in the rest of the article.

Ingredients

  • "Composition" sounds more professional.
  • I think this section should be moved (again). Preferably behind "effects", as you mentioned "Based on Vedic descriptions of Soma's effects", my immediate thought was, "What effects?" Many other areas also contain presumptions that the reader know what you're talking about. I suggest that you try to explain them. It helps you become less random, and the explanation can be another potential joke source.
  • Cayman Islands and Timothy Leary seems random. Also watch the large numbers.
  • If it's top-secret, why is it revealed so easily? If it's meant to be a joke, you should explain it somewhere, like:"Despite that the formula is top-secret, here are the ingredients..."

Usage

  • A very random list. I think you should write in a paragraph. Flesh out some elements while getting rid of others. For instance, focus on the Hindu elements. From Wikipedia: Indra who, inebriated with Soma, slays the dragon (ahi) Vrtra, freeing the rivers, the cows and Dawn. I think you could incorporate the mythological elements and contrast them with modern things, like overdosing Hippies (also from Wikipedia).

Hindustani etc

  • I liked this part more than others. I think Hindu literature is something you should focus on and develop.
  • I liked "translation of translation", however, the joke ends there. I would expect the translated text to sound like it came out of Babelfish, but it didn't. I was disappointed and I hope you would develop this and focus more of your satire on Hindu studies, instead of getting high. I suggest you read the translation of Vedic texts on Wikipedia and satirise their style.

History

  • Same as above.
  • I think you should adopt a more formal tone, and focus less on "the joke is that they got high".

Current

  • It's weird and doesn't satirise anything. Why is Soma now a piece of land? Doesn't help your already very low consistency.

Effects

  • The book died? Is that meant to be a pun?
  • Where does Autobibliography of a Yogi come in? Wasn't Walter Buckingham translating the Book of the Dead? Some explanation is needed.
  • The prose of the excerpt should be more formal, and more purple, wordy, like the kind that British Vedic scholars are likely to use. Now it sounds like you're just reiterating a joke without making the effort to fit it in the article. For one thing, make an effort to at least name the disciples. Off the top of my head, I will call them Pranayama and Pavanayama.
  • I have, in fact, attained Nirvana. Twice.

Falsies

  • Oh dear, an Oscar Wilde quote.
  • Repetition is pretty standard, but it's better than nothing.
  • The © and ®. You're not satirizing consumerism or big companies, why use them?
  • Illuminati sounds random. If you want to keep it, you have to explain why it's there.

Pros and Cons

  • Again, random.

Contraindications

  • Better than other sections, I guess. Explain why it is bad for humans.

End Note

  • I don't think it's very good to go on and on explaining something, only to conclude that it doesn't exist. That seems random and not very funny.

Alternate Definition

  • An excuse to show a picture of a hot chick?
Concept: 4.5 The main problem of this article is that it's very inconsistent, both the concept and the prose. Like I said, you should focus on some and remove others. Right now it looks like it's written by some random high school student, and a lot of the times, the joke is nothing more than "and so and so got high". Some things are just mentioned out of the blue, without explanation, and never touched on again. This makes it very inconsistent and random.

A direction you could take is to make it pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-scientific. For instance, I laughed at the circles caption, and I liked the way you sound like you know what you're talking about, when you don't. I would like more jokes along this line. You could also benefit from more research. Who are the gods? What are the Hindu texts that describe Soma? What did the gods do after they drank Soma? etc, etc.

Prose and formatting: 6 Lead
  • The use of "although" is akward. It should be "although something something, something something else", as in:"although...as aphrodisiacs, real soma is no longer found in this material creation". Alternatively remove the although.

Ingredients

  • The use of present tense makes it informal. Wikipedia usually writes them like: The mixture is simmered...The mixture is then placed.

Usage

  • Laugh uncontrollably at A very (every) thought.

Current

  • "It's NOT about oil, it's about good gear. Who would kill their own Candy-man?" - Phrases like these make it very informal.

Effects

  • "...peaks after meditating (medicating?) on a sufficient amount..." Also note that you never actually talk about effects. This section is better called "In the Autobiliography of the Yogi", like how the Wikipedia article on Soma goes "In Rig Veda, In Hinduism etc"

Falsies

  • Words like bogus, and geezers also make it informal.
Images: 7 The first image is fine, but who are the gods still irked me. The second image I liked. The third and fourth are fine. The mention of Moby Dick is random. And the chick depends on your tastes. Note that fine means not bad but not especially funny. I think it would be better if you have more images that illustrate the article, such as images of Hindu mythology.
Miscellaneous: 5.6 Averaged.
Final Score: 28.1 Overally, I think the article needs a different angle, more jokes, more consistency, and a more formal tone. If you have anything you want me to clarify, just ask me on my talk page. Because I'm feeling generous today, you, in fact, have the honour of getting the longest review I have ever done.
Reviewer: ~Scriptsiggy.JPGTelephonesig Star Starsig Kidneysig 17:35, Jan 26, 2010
Personal tools
projects