Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/The Doctor

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit The Doctor

Basically a character page dedicated to the Doctor. Images are taken from Doctor Who (and David Tennant), since the article in general is supposed to be expanding/making variations on the Doctor section from the main Doctor Who article. Too many pop culture references? Too many inside jokes? Too little on certain subjects? Too many words at all? Do you abhor the existence of this article in general? Let me know. Thanks. MacMania 03:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You made a joke about Tom Baker. YOU MADE A JOKE ABOUT TOM BAKER! If this is still here in a couple of days, I'll come back and you and I will be having words! Pup t 01:59, 23/07/2009

Again, please note all actor images (oh, and names too) have been taken from the Doctor Who article. MacMania 02:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, again, except David Tennant's. MacMania 02:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


Concept, which must be
the basis of your article
if I'm using this template:
6 In a break from my usual way of doing a review, I'm borrowing Boomer's template to discuss the concept prior to going through the rest of this, as this is definitely the first thing that needs to be addressed. And here lies a short lesson that I will call "What makes an good concept for a humorous article?

Okay. The first element that you need is something that that is recognisable. This means if you mention the name or elements of the concept people will sit up and say to themselves "I know what he's talking about." An example of this is if I say the words "President Obama" or "Osama Bin Laden" If I was to say the words "Mr Naughton" you would not have the same reaction. If I said "The dodgy sports teacher" then you understand what I mean. (While I think about it, kisses to you, Mr Naughton. I've been a bad boy!)

Now a step beyond this is making a concept out of two recognisable subjects. Going on from above, if I said "Obama Bin Laden", then you still have that twig, along with an idea of where I'm going with my concept.

The second major aspect of concept is it has to be fresh and witty, or failing that some older material repackaged in a different way. A good example of the latter is watching "Who's line is it anyway?" The same jokes and concepts get used over and over - now true this is because the same comedians are on there constantly and they play to their strengths - but it's still funny watching it because they are witty and they delivered similar material in a fresh and snappy way.

So having said all that, we'll dissect your concept based upon these two factors. The first is recognisability. I know Doctor Who. In fact it would be hard for me to imagine what my life would be like without it as it was a regular Friday evening thing in my household that we would have fish and chips for dinner and sit around my families old black and white TV and watch initially Jon Pertwee and then Tom Baker as Doctor Who. The loss of Tom Baker actually disturbed me at the time as he is still my archetype of the Doctor that I think of. I am a definite Doctor Who fan, and have a fairly good knowledge of the Doctor Who universe.

Where you fall apart is on the originality concept. Having a look at some of the classic Doctor Who comedy in the past, there's some fantastic stuff, including Rowan Atkinson as the Doctor for comic relief, Lenny Henry as the doctor (very funny but slightly dated sketch - it's on youtube if you care to find it), the Dead Ringers stuff on the Tom Baker Doctor Who, Tom Baker's self-referential humour that comes across at times in Little Britain, David Tennant as a female Doctor's companion, Red Dwarf, and of course the classic Spike Milligan Dalek sketch.

Do I know too much on this topic? Yeah.

And then we come to Uncyclopedia itself. The Doctor who article itself was once featured. It's worthwhile actually going back and having a look at the featured version - I wouldn't call it high art, but it's a good chuckle. Have a look at Rose (Doctor Who) as well, although don't expect anything fantastic.

And this is where your concept falls apart. You get 5 points for recognisability, but only 1 for originality. This is very close to the existing Doctor Who article, and as such I can't give much for the originality. Yes, there is some original stuff in there, but not enough to warrant a new article.

Humor, without a second u,
because I'm American:
4 So continuing straight on without interruption, let's pull apart the humour and look at what we have there. Now if you haven't read HTBFANJS yet, then make sure you read it before you make any amendments, as I probably will refer to it in part if not in full as I go through this.

Humble Beginnings/Life on Earth: Here you make a bundle of references to Star wars, Back to the Future (the movie, not the series), OLPC, Star Trek, Google, a Plinko board, [1] Battlestar Galactica, and London. Oh, and you also mentioned Doctor Who.

Now I'm going to relate to a few points in HTB.., When writing nonsense, be consistent, Avoid Clichés: Celebrities, and Be a Comedian: Advice About Nonsense and Opposites. By starting off with a bunch of nonsense that refers to sci-fi culture references (hence the celebrities bit), you're setting the tone for the rest of the article. Now you've gone through something that has extremely little relevance to your topic. Now what would inspire me and the reader to continue reading?

The thing that frustrates me here is looking at the "in-universe" truths about the Doctor. There are so many Origins and History stories that the entire series is self-contradictory. Have a look at the way Daleks are presented. Start from planet of the Daleks and work your way through the Dalek stories. How much of what happens in one show contradicts what happens in another? I remember one classic scene from the Tom Baker series where he escapes from the Daleks by climbing up a steep incline, and then he taunts the Dalek from the top. I also have in mind "Dalek" from the Christopher Eccleston series where all of a sudden the Daleks can fly. How is it in all the time travel and "perfect weapon" concepts of Davros did the Daleks never have the ability to fly before and yet now they suddenly can.

And then we come to the incarnations of the Doctor. Okay, so is David Tennant is the Tenth Doctor. Let's go through the list.

  1. Peter Cushing Hey?
  2. William Hartnell
  3. Patrick Troughton
  4. Trevor Martin What?
  5. Jon Pertwee
  6. David Banks Who?
  7. Tom Baker
  8. Peter Davison
  9. Colin Baker
  10. Sylvester McCoy
  11. Paul McGann
  12. Lenny Henry You're kidding, right?
  13. Jon Culshaw Who's that? Oh, him!
  14. Mark Perry Hey?
  15. Kevin Connelly What?
  16. Phil Cornwell Does this keep going?
  17. Rowan Atkinson No, really?
  18. Richard E. Grant You're shitting me?
  19. Jim Broadbent Seriously?
  20. Hugh Grant No way!
  21. Joanna Lumley But she's a she!
  22. Christopher Eccleston
  23. David Tennant
  24. Matt Smith

Okay, I may have mucked up the chronological order, and I have missed out on a few of them, but these are all people who have played Doctor who in the past. Some on TV, some in satire or parody, and at least two in radio plays. (Later edit - I've just found this listing here that may be a little more complete than mine. Possible that I've listed a few who aren't in this list though - I couldn't be buggered comparing them.)

You have a rich history of characters and caricatures that you can lean on here that you can use to create a good article that is based in truth.

And then we come to those who have written Doctor who scripts or stories. I'm not going to go into details on this one, as I've already got one horrendous fan-boy list here, but I'll just mention Douglas Adams.

So, what I'm going to say as a result of all this is you've got this rich vein of comic material that is based in truth. Yet you've fallen back on a retelling of the same jokes that are already in the Doctor Who page. You have tapped into part of what I'm talking, but not yet enough.

Your spelling and grammar,
which probably sucks:
6 Okay, I've gone on long enough on the important bits and I've now come to this section. Now I'm usually really fussy about the spelling and grammar, as well as your layout and appearance. I'm not going into too much at the moment, because the reality is that there's going to need to be a significant rewrite of this before you can really put it any further forward, and after any rewrite you should proofread.
Shit happens 1

A poor example of layout. The quotes taker up the bulk of the space, and you have the wikipedia template taking up some of your space in your first view. You also have a huge amount of whitespace to the right of your quotes.

Shit happens 2

Kill the quotes and moved wikipedia template down, and potentially it could be moved down further. You have your eye-catching image there on the first screen which is one of your eye grabbing tools and your TOC so your reader can skip ahead to the section that makes them the most interested.

So having said that a few minor points. Lead-in quotes are annoying. You have 3 seconds to grab a potential readers attention prior to them deciding to read on or go to another page. A lead-in quote does not get someone in. You should always start off with an image (hopefully of what you are talking about), a brief introductory text, and then depending on the length or your article a table of contents, an abbreviated table of contents, or just go straight into your main article.

I created these two images to the right for a previous review, but the same ruling applies here. About the only thing I would do here is either a) use the template Info/Person if you are doing an article on a person (albeit one that changes his look a lot), or b) use the template Info/Media if you are doing a piece on the series. Although I'm not completely sold on the Wikipedia article on Doctor Who, this is a better layout than what you're currently looking at.

Spacing before your text puts it in a "box" but also ruins the word wrap. Don't do it. Instead look at sticking it into this code:-

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="background-color: lightblue; border:solid darkblue 1px; width: 100%;" align=center
|| Your text type stuff goes here

And feel free to experiment with the border and background colour settings. Throw it into Sandbox and see what you can do with it.

Right justify your images. Left justification creates issues with the narrative flow. (Not in every case, but in most cases.)

Images, or lack of: 3 The images are for the most part unoriginal. I know, as you've mentioned here a few times, they have been taken straight from the Doctor Who article. The problem is that these are all examples of bad potatochopping. The captions on them doesn;t add anything to the pverall piece.
Miscellaneous, not averaged,
despite what some would
have you believe:
6 You obviously know your topic. You may not be a complete fanboy, but you know what you're talking about enough to get a fair amount of detail out of it. You have put some thought into the article, and as much as I don't like lead in quotes, removing the bit about Ford Prefect would actually make this a good use of humour based upon the truth.
Final Score, totaled, as most
would have you believe:
25 Okay, and although I never say this, I will this one time. Scrap this article. The reason why I'm saying this is that there is already a Doctor Who article. Spend a bit of time rewriting it completely. Expose the stupidity of the in-universe and the stupidity of the behind the scenes of the show.

Oh, and please spend a fair bit of time making fun of Tom Baker. Knowing his sense of humour, he would appreciate it.

Me: The 13th Doctor

Gosh, I'd forgotten completely about the Comic Relief special! Will scrap. Thank you. MacMania 13:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

  1. Which I didn't know what that was before this article, and I now do. And would like those brain cells back.
Personal tools