Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/That Fidgety Weird Kid Who Sits Behind You In Third Period

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit That Fidgety Weird Kid Who Sits Behind You In Third Period

 My first totally original article

Schism1985 19:57, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

The template says it all.☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃ 10:24 December 23

Not any more it doesn't. This is open for anyone to review again, folks! --UU - natter UU Manhole 10:04, Dec 29
In fact, I have time and tea, I'll take a looksee. --UU - natter UU Manhole 10:11, Dec 29
UUtea A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article
is being reviewed by:
UU - natter UU Manhole
(While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead).
(Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole).
Humour: 4 Rightyho, that doesn't look a great score, so let me explain it: in my warped way, I see 5 as being "average", so that's just one point off average, and it won't take muck to crank it up to average or above, so don't be discouraged!

Now, why? OK, well what you have here is a decent idea (see next section) with an OK execution. A good part of the reason for this is the consistency: it isn't there. You need to make the tone of the article more consistent, which means deciding how you're going to approach it, and then keeping that tone throughout. For instance, the infobox and some of the text (particularly the intro) suggests a somewhat formal style, using a mock-serious scientific voice to mock the subject; that works well when done properly, but you need to maintain the style in order for it to work, and you drop too easily into specific insults and/or opinions ("what a fucking freak").

What I'd recommend is using the mock-scientific prose style to suggest the insults, without ever actually saying them - it's a literary trick known as "show but not tell"; if you put in enough description of the natural traits of the kid, you make it plain he's a freak without actually saying so, which is both more consistent with your tone and actually funnier.

So I'd recommend reading through again, and wherever you've made a direct insult, or bluntly stated something ("unappealing, sexually repulsive" etc), simply describe the characteristics more strongly until it is obvious what you're accusing them of, but you appear to be trying to suggest the opposite. It takes a little more effort, but it's worth it! You can use the scientific tone to try and suggest reasons why this behaviour has evolved, and have further fun with it. You're essentially setting this up as an anthropological study, so make it read more like one, and let the insults suggest themselves - it'll be much funnier than just stating them bluntly!

I like much of what you've put in the infobox, although it's a bit long - prune the less essential stuff, just keep the best bits (I'd try to cut it by at least a third), and it should be punchier and more effective. Also, try to use some of theideas you touch on there in the article, and expand on them, it should give you more content quite easily.

Concept: 6 A good basic idea - I'm sure many people can at least recognise the stereotype, so there's plenty to work with. This score is above average, but not hugely so, because I think there's a lot more you can do with it, but you haven't explored it fully yet.
Prose and formatting: 5 Again, inconsistent tone lets you down a little here - follow the suggestions above, and this score will also ramp up accordingly. One or two other tips:
  • Too many quotes - an over-abundance of quote is not a great way to start, we recommend one or two at most. I'd possibly just keep the Al Gore one, as the most interesting, and one that may even give you another section to play with later on - why are they such a valuable resource?
  • Sandals, not sandles; psychotropic, not psychotrophic.
  • You have one or two lengthy sentences that could benefit from an additional comma or two - try the old trick of reading aloud, and inserting one wherever you naturally pause during the sentence - the first line of the Physical Characteristics section is an example.

Oh, and I'm not sure that it needs that Interweb template at the bottom either - it doesn't really fit with it.

Images: 5 Hmm, well, there are two. One is a little too small and captioned, again, with no consistency - make the caption fit the article a little better and you're no the way. The other isn't captioned and is possibly a little too large.

I'd add a third image (there should be plenty out there you can steal), put them all on the right, and caption them all in keeping with the style of the article, then you should be fine.

Miscellaneous: 5 I'd average with {{pee}}, but even my maths skills can tell me what the average is here.
Final Score: 25 So, we have a bang-on-the-average article here - it's OK, but not outstanding. But it is a good start, and I think it could become a pretty decent article without too much difficulty (and even better with more work - it's up to you and how much you feel like doing). Establish consistency, avoid the obvious insults and imply them strongly in your text instead, and explore your idea a little further, and you should have something you can be pleased with here. It's certainly better than many first articles I've seen, and I really do hope you return to work on it some more - I'd like to see this finished!

Finally, remember: this is only my opinion, others are available. And good luck! --UU - natter UU Manhole 10:44, Dec 29

Reviewer: --UU - natter UU Manhole 10:44, Dec 29
Personal tools