Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Surgeon General's Warning
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Yes. So, I wrote this one a little while back and I'd merely like somebody's views on it beside my own. I wonder whether it may be too dry, but I think it's pretty good. Take your time if there are other more pressing reviews in the queue, as this one is more of a curiosity situation.12:37, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
I'll do this one, 24 hours. --ChiefjusticeDS 20:10, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
|Humour:||8||The humour was quite enjoyable and kept me interested enough to complete the article without my mind wandering. The humour did strike me as not being perfect, it felt like it was getting very close but was not quite there. At first I was unsure as to what it was missing, but eventually I decided that your articles humour, while mostly valid and enjoyable tends to be quite sparse in some parts and then very dense in others, this is not as serious as it could be as I felt there was a subtle undertone of satire throughout, but in some sections this isn't quite enough to prevent the section feeling slightly empty. These instances usually occur in small bursts, but their appearance is undeniable. My advice for fixing them is that you should carefully read through the article and search for these instances, when you find them carefully consider what you can do to improve them. As I say, this is not essential, there is plenty here to keep readers occupied but it would benefit from a second look.
My other point was that some of the humour seems slightly random, in the section "The New Era, The Ushering In Of Which Has Been Previously Mentioned" you talk about Mr T and Rick Astley, while I saw what you were doing with it, their inclusion was still quite surprising and, in my view, hurt the humour more than they added to it. While some of the later parts of the item include distortions of the truth this seemed to be taking it a bit far, while I was amused by the Mr T style warning, I was unsure about the way you introduced it and the parts of the section preceding this. I felt that I may have been missing a joke, but regardless, I would recommend you at least reconsider the section. My advice for doing this would be to clearly establish to yourself what you want to do with the section and then make sure you are always following that rule, I'm not suggesting that the humour in a section must be all in one style but rather that the varying styles should be justified and should permit the article to continue to flow.
As to your concern about the article being overly dry, I did not feel this was the case. I felt that the humour has plenty of depth when it appears and that the jokes feel dry on only a couple of occasions. I have certainly read articles that are more deserving of such a title in the past, your humour is genuinely amusing in places and the dry humour works well when it appears, my view is that if you do feel that your humour is too dry in some places, take a look at the tone of the article, I feel that that would have the most influence over it rather than changing individual jokes.
|Concept:||8||The concept is fine and twice the idea drew me to have a look at the article. The tone is interesting, as far as I can tell it veers more toward the encyclopaedic tone but it does contain a couple of examples that seem more suited to the first person. I would recommend that you decide which to go with rather than splitting the tone, this may have lent itself to the start, stop nature of the jokes. My advice would be to decide which one to fully go with, again I am not saying "You may have no variation" I'm suggesting that you try to make instances where the tone does vary relatively few, and have a main overarching tone that dominates the article's narrative. You may find that you feel the article becomes more dry if you make it more encyclopaedic, the tone does lend itself to that feeling, however this is not inevitable, you just need to retain the humorous undertone the article currently has. Once again, this is not serious, the article is enjoyable nonetheless and these problems are cosmetic in nature.|
|Prose and formatting:||9||I was duly impressed by your prose and formatting. The prose are practically without error and this leads me to believe you have made some effort to check your work, accordingly I recommend that you continue to do so as you are, if you haven't been checking your work then I congratulate you on your language skills. There are a few points of ambiguity but I won't waste time waffling about them, if you want to look for them feel free. Your formatting was impressive too. When I first saw the text boxes you had used in the articles I thought that they would spell trouble for your formatting, I was pleased to see that this was not the case. There are some problems in the middle of the page where an image's the close proximity of one of these (the one with "GOVERNMENT WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, I pity da fool who smoke 'dis shit! Fucks y'all up!" in it) means that the prose feel squeezed around these; this makes the middle of the article quite scruffy. Otherwise very good work.|
|Images:||10||The images are fine and the captions are likewise, a mark would normally come off for formatting difficulties, but I decided that the problem was so minor it wasn't worth taking two marks.|
|Miscellaneous:||8||My overall grade of the article.|
|Final Score:||43||A thoroughly enjoyable piece of work that made me laugh a couple of times as I read. You should not be unduly concerned by the issues I have raised here, by all means investigate further but don't feel the changes are essential, they are pretty cosmetic and if you don't think changes are needed then by all means leave the article as it is. For me the article was enjoyable but pulled down slightly by some minor errors. If you have any questions or comments for me then please leave them on my talk page. Good luck making any changes and well done.|
|Reviewer:||--ChiefjusticeDS 23:37, December 19, 2009 (UTC)|