Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Tinkle-down economics
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
I'll get to this within 24 hours. Patience! --21:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm really getting sick of this whole "I call this, no one else review it" crap on PR... Saberwolf116 01:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, Saberwolf116. I'm using the time to pace myself and do some research, read related articles as well as read up on the subject of the article. I just claimed it so all that effort wouldn't be for nothing. If I'm not done within 24 hours, by all means, snipe away. -- 02:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
|Concept:||4||Okay, so I stole The Qwerty Kid's pee template because I wanted Concept to show up first. Right away, before I even read the article, the title gave me bad vibes. One of my pet peeves is when people give an object a new name that's just a crude pun on the original name. (The Jonas Brothers? More like the Jon-Ass Brothers!) This case here isn't as bad as some, especially since you do actually write about tinkling, but it still sets off red flags. I really would suggest renaming this "Trickle-down Economics" and just running with that. That way it's a little more obvious that it's a real article about a real subject, and not just name-calling.
Another early red flag that the article was going to descend into mediocrity was the reference to Supply-Side Jesus. The plethora of Jesii is kind of a tired in-joke, like kitten-huffing. The Supply-side Jesus article is decent, and there's no harm in linking to it, but I think you should do it later in the article and elaborate on it a little so it doesn't look like you're just throwing out in-jokes.
You seem to make a distinction between TDE, supply-side economics, and Reaganomics, when I thought they were the same thing. I checked Wikipedia and it said that 'Today, supply-side economics is often conflated with the politically rhetorical term "trickle-down economics."' Okay, whatever, I don't really know what "conflate" means, I still say they're all the same. Now, when more than one article exists on a subject here, it's usually because one article is the "good" article while the rest are outlets where people can write whatever else they want so it doesn't ruin the primary article. But this subject isn't so popular so an arrangement like that hasn't been worked out yet. I checked those other articles about the same and it all gets a little redundant. Like, we don't really need articles about Reaganomics and Supply-side economics and TDE all conflating to the same thing. I think you're articles already better than those two (in fact, I'd put Reagonomics on VFD if I weren't using it to make a point), but it doesn't really stand out. So to improve the article, I'd say don't just give a general overview of TDE, with different tones and viewpoints conflating. Get one specific direction and just drive it home. See George W. Bush for a successful example of this.
Right now your article's too general, and the way it conflates between being encyclopedic about the theory in some places and first-person in others doesn't do it any favors. Focus. Are you writing as a historian? A rich guy who benefits from TDE? Are you writing first-person? Are you going to let any bias slip, and if so, which way? If you're writing it as if it's for Wikipedia, you can't justify those "Unbelievable!" comments at the end. If you're not, you can't justify the "in popular culture" section.
|Prose and Formatting:||8||I didn't see any spelling errors, and you manage to fit lots of images without looking tacky. On my screen resolution, though, the Theory and History sections both have one lonely line that runs under the image next to the paragraph. I can't think of a way to fix this for all screen resolutions, but if you write more text, it should solve itself.
The short "in popular culture" looks weird tacked on the end like that, and without a Wikipedia notice saying that trivia sections are discouraged. There's an idea, if you want to go with that...
|Images:||7||Not a bad set of images considering how they were all STOLEN FROM IMAGE SEARCH, probably. Some issues with inconsistent tone in the captions that I mentioned earlier. Also, make sure to conflate the captions with punctuation.|
|Humour:||4||I didn't get any real lols from this piece. Here's my breakdown.
Lead: I'm with you on this, aside from the conflation issues I mentioned earlier. You start to use escalation, which is good, but the break from third-person doesn't help. I mean, you're mugging me, so it doesn't really make sense that the article continues from there. Since you seem to be writing this from pro-TDE perspective, maybe you should appeal to the religious right and reference some biblical plagues?
Theory: I like the ideas you have here, but they need to be presented better. There are jokes, but there's no real distinction between setup and punchline. It's like you had some good ice cream and cake, but you let them melt and conflate together into a soggy mess. Break your longer sentences into shorter ones, and give examples of things you talk about, like how people are paid to humiliate themselves. The second paragraph comes out a little blunt, and it seems like you're against everyone, calling the rich people brainless and saying nobody cares what poor people think. Whose side are you on, man?
History: This section starts to lose it. It feels too blunt and factual. Keep it cool, boy.
The rest of the article: "Theory", "History", "All the more reason the be rich, right?", and "In popular culture". Which one of those does not fit in? That section's okay but it doesn't conflate well with the rest of the article. You should try to expand it with detail (like how you make money by flying to India), but before you even do that, find a focus.
|Improvability Score:||6||I don't really know what this "Improvability" score is supposed to be, so I'll tell a lame joke instead. Why didn't the watermelon marry the honeydew? Because they can't elope.|
|Final Score:||29||Practice practice location focus penis. This article could turn out to we a winner, but it's so hard to tell where it's going right now, which is the problem.|
|Reviewer:||Yours in conflation, --03:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)|