Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Tiger Gun (2)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Tiger Gun

I have fixed up quite a bit of my article, Tiger Gun, and would like another review. I have taken the advice from the previous review, and would like to see the new opinion on it.

Twinsoul 01:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)



Hyperbole is engaged in the dual processes
of giving you his opinion and pretending you care.
Humour: 5.5 Hey, Twinsoul!

So, I'm pleasantly surprised at how little this article sucks. When I clicked over to Pee Review, my first thought was "Oh, my God. An article on something that doesn't exist but sounds cool, written by a new user. This is going to be fucking horrible." They always are.

Well, this is not fucking horrible. Which isn't to say it's perfect. Let's take it section-by-section.

  • Lede: Mixed bag. I almost laughed out loud at the "Gun That Only Fires When Aimed at Old Women." Nice one, there. But you didn't get as much mileage as you could have out of the enemy retreating line as you could have. (They're retreating because they don't want a tiger shot at them, right? There's got to be a funny quip in that). As for Richard Simmons - well, let me just be clear about this...
Get him the fuck out of this article.
Okay. I hope that was clear. That's just a typical new user mistake - start naming random celebrities in the hopes that people will laugh simply because they recognize the name. Or: crack obvious, repetitive jokes about the celebrity (all Michael Jackson jokes = pedophilia. All Richard Gere jokes = gerbil. All Chuck Norris jokes = let's not even fucking go there). Take it from me when I tell you that no one here finds that shit funny. If there's a reason for a celebrity to be in an article, that's one thing, but, you know what? There usually isn't.
Moving on...
  • History/ Before Guns: Not bad!! I laughed at the way the article boldy ignored the fact that the tiger would maul the caveman before being thrown. I laughed at the article's ridiculous explanation that rocks were thrown because they didn't eat. I laughed at the lava monsters. Take out the "video games (oh the horror)" bit, though - that's just distracting and not very funny.
"Falls from great heights" - very funny. "Of course, neither the tiger nor the dimwit survived" - great. I like how that line isn't explained at all.
This is a very strong section.
  • History/ The Golden Age of Animal Warfare: This is weak. The wit of the first section just isn't present here. Instead, we've just got a bunch of random, made-up stuff about a made-up weapon. It's hoping it can be funny just by virtue of being absurd, but that just doesn't work.
You know, the best humor on this site is really about being clever. The bit about the tiger allowing itself to be thrown, and then eating the victim, and then eating the caveman - that was very clever. It was just creative. It was so dumb that it was impossible to think of, and you just have to laugh at how staggeringly dumb it is.
But the stuff in this section... is absurd without being clever. Lots of people on the site have tried fictional histories and fictional specifications for fictional objects, and it just ends up reading like Mad Libs. And you're hitting a Mad Libs problem here.
  • History/ A step Backwards: Nope. Same exact problem as the last section. Also: links to Asplode, which is quite frankly my least favorite meme on this site. As a general rule, if a new writer can identify something as an Uncyclopedia inside joke, everyone who's established on Uncyclopedia hates that joke with a blazing fury.
  • History/ A Fortunate Recovery: Not great. A lot of the same, and now it's getting really old, just listening to specs on fictional weapons. However, the bit about the target finding the ammunition cute amused me. Let's please, please get rid of the Furry Orgies stuff - furries are just too obvious as targets.
  • Lethality: GRATUITOUS GAY JOKE WARNING. A word to the wise: we get so many gratuitous gay jokes on Uncyclopedia that even one will sink an article in most peoples' minds. You want to tell a gay joke, you'd better be damn subtle and clever. The line "And nothing can piss off a tiger more than being thrown thousands of feet with no warning after being shoved in a small tank for several hours" is funny, but you kind of already told that joke.
  • Weaknesses and Counter-Weapons: Much better. This is another funny section. The image of yarn-ball-launchers is hilarious. The random cheap shot against bearded soldiers "looking like Santa" is hilarious. The catnip bomb is... meh, kind of funny. Good enough for a smile.
  • The Anti-Tigun Unit: Redundant. Utterly redundant to what I just read. Why is this here?
  • Why tigers?: Ehhh. Honestly, all I'm going to say about this ending is it's trying way, way too hard. Just, you know, settle down a bit, and all will be well.
Concept: 4 This is really not bad at all for a first article! But, like many first articles, your choice of topic isn't so good. The best articles, generally, parody something. Maybe they parody their Wikipedia page, or maybe they parody something that exists in the real world.

A Tiger Gun isn't a parody of any actual gun. At best - and this is a stretch - we could say the article is a parody of the way children make up AWESOME WEAPONS that are actually ridiculous. The website "Real Ultimate Power" does that parody beautifully, and in fact is hilarious. But, honestly, sometimes Tiger Gun feels more like an instance of that kind of thing than a parody of it.

Prose and formatting: 7 The prose is solid. I see a couple usage errors and some weird stuff going on in the phrasing, but for the most part, this is damn solid writing. The formatting is okay. There's a lot of text after the last picture, which is a problem, and there's no sections like "See Also" at the end, which sort of makes the article seem to end abruptly.
Images: 7 Yeah, they're okay. But this article desperately needs a badass picture of a tiger being shot out of a gun. It just demands that someone Photoshop that picture. It feels naked without that picture.
Miscellaneous: 5 Five.
Final Score: 28.5 Okay, here's my advice. You can make this funnier. You can make it better. You can make it into a really solid article that sort of sits in a back corner of Uncylopedia where no one ever reads it.

Or, you can write on a better-known subject, or on a subject that parodies a better-known subject, and people will read your article, and link to your article, and pay attention to your article. You're a good writer with a definite sense of wit. I bet you've got a featured article in you.

But Tiger Gun? I don't think any article about a gun that shoots tigers is ever going to be a feature. Maybe you could surprise me, but I think your talents would be put to better use writing something else.

Good luck!

Reviewer: Tinymasaru.gifpillow talk 01:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools