Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Svetlana of The Real World

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Svetlana of The Real World 00:34, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

I can do this after I do Phrase. In the meantime, anyone else is fair game to review this --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 01:42 EST 5 Mar, 2010
I think I'll do it right now. What the heck. Tinymasaru.gifpillow talk 21:45, March 5, 2010 (UTC)


Hyperbole is engaged in the dual processes
of giving you his opinion and pretending you care.
Humour: 2 Okay, let's discuss the basic, fundamental flaws with this article.
  1. It has no concept whatsoever. The article is nominally about Svetlana Shusterman from Season 17 of The Real World. It dispenses with that topic in three sentences, by saying that Svetlana sounds like a name a hot girl would have. And then it moves on to whatever pops into your head, which is usually, apparently, the sucking of cock.
  2. It breaks the fourth wall in an annoying way. There's nothing necessarily wrong with breaking the fourth wall, but when someone says "Gee, I sure hope this crappy article isn't deleted," that isn't funny and it makes no one laugh. It's just a signal that the article is about to suck.
  3. The article is little more than an invitation for various relatives of mine to fellate the narrator. And although Colin Heaney assures me that dicks are very, very "lol," nothing about these invitations made me lol.
  4. The article drifts into pointless randomness, where the narrator blathers on uninterestingly about fields and about his car, and tosses in a lame anti-Semitic joke for no reason.
Concept: 0 As there is no concept to this article, I cannot in good faith award any points in this category.

I'm going to assume good faith here: I'll assume that you submitted this for Pee Review because you want to write a funny article that will make people laugh. If that's the case, here's my advice: you can't just sit down and start typing whatever nonsense pops into your head. Thousands and thousands of people have tried that approach to an article, and almost no one has succeeded. The correct way to write an article is to think of a funny idea for an article and then write that article.

So, my advice to you is: start thinking of funny ideas. It's actually not really that hard. Shoot, there's even stuff in here that you could use. You could, for example, write an article about soup kitchens that was about how they were important charitable institutions, and then, as the article went on, it'd become obvious that the narrator was actually only interested in exploiting the female homeless for cheap blowjobs. That could actually be pretty funny. But you can't just plop that idea down in two sentences in the middle of an article about nothing and call it comedy. Or, more accurately, you can, but most people will disagree with you.

Prose and formatting: 6 Your formatting and prose really isn't that bad at all. The writing is done in a very casual, first-person style. Some Uncyclopedia editors dislike that and would like more articles to be a parody of encyclopedic writing, but the casual, first-person style has definitely been present in more than a few featured articles. And you can pull off that style. Your writing isn't incoherent; it's just that what you're writing about is incoherent.

The formatting is kind of ugly; articles don't generally start with a big table of contents and then a section header. But I've seen worse.

Images: 3 There's nothing funny about these images. I like looking at pictures of girls wearing bikinis, but there's no actual reason for it to be there. But, then, there can't be any actual reason for any picture to be anywhere in this article, because there's no actual purpose to the article. You can't really illustrate randomness, except by dropping in random pictures with captions that don't relate to the text. And that is, in fact, what you have done.
Miscellaneous: 1 The bright red box on the left side of this text is meant to signify: Stop. Stop what you're doing. Take a breath and approach article-writing from a different angle entirely. And, hopefully, you can help turn this box green.
Final Score: 12 Okay, like I said, this is not a good article, and it's almost certain to be deleted. And it really cannot be saved - not unless you want to go ahead and watch some of Season 17 of The Real World, and write an article that has something to do with Svetlana Shusterman. We don't really like articles here that declare that they're about something and then never talk about that something but instead just blather on pointlessly about dicks. And we delete a surprisingly large number of them every day: you're certainly not the first person to try this.

But I sincerely hope that you will 1) register an account on Uncyclopedia; 2) think of a funny idea for an article; 3) write that article; 4) get it Pee Reviewed; 5) have the Pee Reviewer say "this is so funny I just spit milk out of my nose"; 6) have the article featured; 7) become an arrogant bastard who struts around the wiki saying "I have a featured article! What do you have, n00b?"

Good luck!

Reviewer: Tinymasaru.gifpillow talk 22:08, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools