Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Suddenly, Delete!
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
I'll do this. 20:42, 14 February 2011
The idea, the angle, the grand funny of the article...
|Eh, it is what it is, really. Derivative. Both copying and to a lesser extent, playing off the existing joke, the raccoons, the coons, the potentiality of Ra... problem is, though, like all out-there things, they generally lose their funny pretty much after the first one. After that, it's just, "Oh, it's another ______". Fill in the meme, since that's what they effectively become after the first one or two.
Mind, they can work - Coons did so well as it did because of its strange intellectuality - bringing in nuances of history to become both a play of words on the racoons and a fairly clever historical piece, and likewise you are taking yours in quite another direction as well, but without the play and without it likelily meaning anything to outsiders. Call it what you will, inside-joke, self-reference, vanity... those terms all seem to be thrown about the same sorts of things, whatever they actually mean. Point is, it ain't apt to mean a whole lot to the average passerby, and I don't have a much of an inkling as to what you could do about that.
But that's really rather dreary - like I said, it is what it is. If you indeed are going to make an in-joke, may as well make it the best you damn well can, right? You know your audience - Uncyclopedians; use that. Know your subjects - the vandals, the admins, even Hyperbole - how are they really, and how does the audience perceive them? Can you play off that, off both the perception of as well as the nuances of the users themselves?
For more accuracy, though, or even just ideas, considered looking through the fellows' logs? Some of these admins say some pretty funny things in general, but if you do get more of a feel for what they would actually say, there is more potential for funnies for the folks who know them. Like... I dunno, Chief's strange use of commas, for instance. Bad example, but I don't actually have the logs in front of me, myself.
And why are the other ones so recent when Hyperbole's was Junish? It was a PLS entry, got disqualified because Olipro is an arse... er, I mean because it was deemed to have had too little effort put into it, despite how funny it ultimately proved to be. Instead of just ignoring that, though, why not use it? Effort vs funny, policy and whatnot vs funny, even the whole drama in general... perhaps poke fun at Uncyclopedians' penchant for making drama out of the strangest things, but even some reference might give it more grounding.
Seems too much of a non-sequitor as it is, and while the non-sequitor itself is the entire point, don't overdo it. Make it follow a little more, if that makes any sense.
The graphics themselves, as well as their humour and relevance...
|Score due to their apparent randomness and most not actually being that funny; comments are with the humour section. Working on their consistency with each other would probably also help - size, style, etc...|
The implementation, how funny the article comes out...
|Now for the page-by-page...
|Prose and formatting |
Appearance, flow, overall presentation...
|Proofread... 'it's' is a conjunction of 'it' and 'is'; use 'its' otherwise. Only use commas to separate clauses. If you have two statements and want to have them be one sentence, use a semicolon. If a quote has punctuation inside it, don't put punctuation outside it, too. I mean, instead of "... word!". just do ... word!"
The pages would probably look better if you centered the images, or something, especially on the last one - looks pretty bad on wider sceens. Add a linebreak between the text and the images, too.
Those are supposed to be log entries, right? The formatting is a little off, which you may or may not want to look to, since it looks off, but it also isn't actually needed information that you left out...
Also, I'm not sure why you start out calling it a policy - how is this is a policy? Essay, perhaps, but really it just seems to be an article, so the template has me a mite confused.
Anything else... or not...
|Didn't he only ban you for a couple of months, or something? I'd look, but I don't have the logs. Or even access to the logs. I'm on a bus. Stupid bus.
Later: Now I can't be bothered.
|Final score |
22:14, 15 February 2011
|There you go. Sorry it took so long, and sorry it's not very hopeful, but I've never been much of a fan of derivative works, especially such self-referential ones as this. Hopefully this should help for what it is, however.|