Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Can anyone please also give me some quick feedback about the present state of the article; especially the changes I made after I became autopatrolled, you know, the Impact and legacy section, the new Did you knows, etc. Spike, Aleister, Shabidoo, your reviews, suggestions, and improvements have been pretty useful. Could you please give me some more reviews and suggestions, I’d be very grateful. Many thanks. Alpalwriter (talk) 11:29, March 27, 2014 (UTC)]
- I'll take this one. -- 09:32, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
|Humour:||5||Hello! I'll start this review by professing my ignorance - something I have to do depressingly often these days - as to the subject matter, I am unfamiliar with Hinduism, generally uniformed about the Bhagavad Gita and unenlightened by Krishna (beyond recognising the name). As a result I hope you are not too let down by my inability to criticise parts of your work or suggest improvements to the subject matter in of itself. I will give you my thoughts on the article having read it, alas I can do little more.
Your article is well constructed and I can see that there are jokes going on throughout and I did find some of them amusing and the article overall is far from poor. The problem is that the whole experience for me was marred by the fact that I felt an outsider to a great deal of it. If we consider the start of your article, your preamble begins promisingly and my initial impressions were promising, however by the time I reached the people starring in the film I was struggling. You make the assumption that the reader is already on board with what you are saying and launch into jokes about it and around it almost immediately. For me, I could recognise some of the names, but I could not recognise what it is about them that makes them significant or relevant, and this is key as these names and characters crop up numerous times throughout the rest of the article. This problem lessens the impact of the jokes that you make later and I felt myself wanting to close the article and read something else rather than to continue to read through something that was evidently passing me by. While I do not propose that you should devote a massive paragraph to explaining yourself and the whole article's concept I think it needs to be unpacked more than it is at present. As challenging as it is, try to read through the article as though you were ignorant of it, ask yourself what questions you would want answered and what you would need to understand before you could comfortably enjoy the article.
I appreciate that you have linked to Wikipedia on numerous occasions, something that was welcome whilst I was reading through, but this just isn't sufficient to convey meaning. As the author of this piece you should take some responsibility to contextualise what you are saying, bear in mind that when directed to the wikipedia page a person is then faced with either skim-reading their introduction or reading through the whole thing. This is all time that people aren't spending laughing at your article and is an awfully big ask for your casual reader. Humour's baseline, especially somewhere like Uncyclopedia, is it's accessibility it is easier to click "Random Feature" than it is to spend twenty minutes attempting to engage with a piece of work that asks you to do the work for it. I do not mean this to sound cruel or overly critical, but I hope it reflects my frustration in feeling like I am trapped on the outside looking in.
My advice, as mentioned above, is not that you spend a huge amount of space and time explaining everything as that would make your article a footnote to explanation and that isn't particularly useful either. Consider the following example: presume that you are reading an article about my recent holiday, a subject you know nothing about (I hope) and my introduction went like this:
"The Justice Holiday was an event that took place in Spring 2014, it was raining. Present were: Chief Justice Snr the Third of Pontefract, Dame Justice the ninth of Sealtainneach, ChiefjusticeDS and the always indomitable Flopsy, Justice hound. Shortly thereafter they arrived at Alba by way of the mór-rathad. It was raining, a state of affairs that did not alter once in seven days."
You would go on to read the next bit of the article about the Justice family and Flopsy partaking of local delicacies such as taigeis or of the arguments that occurred; I will not torture you with these. You would recognise the names and perhaps would have some idea of who the people are but would be unfamiliar with many of the terms or how they are relevant. I appreciate that a discussion about my recent holiday is something that only I would know about and your article is discussing people and objects that actually exist, but I hope this illustrates my point. If you don't understand what is happening, who the people are your enjoyment of the article can only be superficial. The key is to provide some further introduction, explain who people are, give context and include information the reader should be aware of. There are numerous ways to do this, for instance where you mention Wendy Doniger mention something like "Author of numerous, disturbing books on eroticism". While I appreciate that this may not be easy to fit within your article in its current form you may wish to consider entirely re-drafting the preamble to make it clearer, consider how Wikipedia's preambles on film articles do this and look to replicate it here.
The parts where you speak about rioting and bits outside of the film itself are enjoyable as the are and I like the way your article flows into them effortlessly. Parts of this article are really good and your ability as a writer is not in question here, what needs work is the accessibility of your article to outsiders and I would urge you to consider some different ways to provide this accessibility, have a look at some featured articles whose topics you are unfamiliar with, consider how the authors introduce you to their work and look at how this can be applied to your article.
|Concept:||7||There's very little wrong with the concept of the article, it just needs to be plainer for the reader to see. You are obviously making fun of a number of groups in the article, find some way to explain why and look at expanding the details of the film's production. At present you discuss the plot and characters of the film, but very little about anything else, consider taking the lead from wikipedia here where they chronicle production difficulties, controversies and critical responses to the film. Your focus is centrally on the film and its subject matter, which is fair enough, but why not talk about other aspects? Especially as you seem to hint towards other aspects in the preamble and in the "Release and Reception" section, it seems to me that there is potential for some expansion here, expansion into these aspects might give you an opportunity to do some of the explanation that I spoke about above.|
|Prose and formatting:||5||Spelling and grammar is not an issue here, you seem to have a decent grasp of it so I won't rattle on about it too much. The article, simply put, looks untidy. I count around 18 images, not including those in templates. That is a lot, especially for an article that is not particularly heavy on prose. There is no requirement to match images to prose and there is nothing wrong with having a lot of images, but where those images don't seem to add much to the article it quickly becomes tiresome, especially near the bottom of the article where the formatting isn't particularly tidy. I would suggest, despite the above, reducing the number of images at this point, consider what you are using the images to say, can it be said better with prose? Ask yourself whether the images are illustrating an aspect of the article or making a new point on their own. Images are best when they are illustrating a point made in the text and making an extra joke about it, it's challenging to make a point solely with an image. A lot of points that would be better placed in the text or in new sections are being presented as images or in topic boxes to save explanation. While sometimes this is positive as it saves making up jokes where you feel the image makes them better, here I don't feel like this is the case. I will of course defer to your greater understanding of the article here, but it seems to me that a bit more text might serve better than a large number of images.|
|Images:||6||See above for my main comments on this as they overlap with formatting. The images themselves are fine and there's no criticism of those here.|
|Miscellaneous:||6||My overall grade of the article.|
|Final Score:||29||This was a challenging review to write and I hope I have sailed the difficult course between constructive criticism and my own ignorance safely. If I haven't I hope I can correct this, at least in part, here. You can write, and you can write well, that is obvious and the fairly low score for humour owes itself more to a lack of explanation than poor writing ability. There are bits of this article that are clever and made me smile when I read them, and I only wish that I could derive the same enjoyment from the whole thing. This review cannot appropriately address the subject matter while I am struggling to comprehend it, so I have not commented on it for fear of wasting everybody's time. If you can find a way to make this article more accessible to others then you're definitely on to a winner here and I would be more than happy to make further suggestions. Above all remember that this review is simply my opinion, it isn't fact, nor is it more valid than what anybody else thinks, if other people have contradicted me and give conflicting advice then it is down to you to decide what the best course of action is. If you have any questions or comments for me then please feel free to put them on my talk page. Best of luck making your changes.|
|Reviewer:||--11:10, April 15, 2014 (UTC)|