I made this an ass long time ago. It won me Author of the Month but failed at VFH Its pretty long, so if you can't do long articles don't bother. Indepth please! Thanks!
DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 07:15, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
This needs major grammar cleanup and some minor formatting. Do you mind if I assist you with this instead of a review? I think it could possibly be feature-worthy! – (ooh!)(aah!)...·º•ø®@»LEGCUNGUNDUN 07:43, 18 January 2010
Note to all users: this is currently on VFH, so wait until the nomination ends, if this wins, this pee can be deleted, if if doesnt, pee away then!--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 02:48, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
Well, since nobody is doing this, I will. ~ 13:11, Feb 12, 2010
So my first thought was, "This looks promising", but the more I read the more random it seemed. But then I realized, this is as good as internet meme humour can get, and well-written meme humour is really rare, so good job. But, this is also why I think the article won't get featured (at least I wouldn't vote for it), without a significant conceptual change. Lead
This is actually ok, and this was what gave me the "this looks promising" thought. I'm not sure about the "(Don't tell them, see what happens!)", it's a bit weird and redundant.
The lead establishes a comical style of humour, such as the name of the treasure itself "whatchamacallit", and things like "peanut butter and jelly sandwiches". I think this is ok, and is slightly amusing.
This chapter is ok. It seems to me that in this chapter, the article is trying to establish itself as a satire on adventure/treasure hunting films.
At this point, I liked the long character list descriptions. I think that they satirize how in adventure films, the characters are all assigned a cheesy archetype.
When Mr.T appeared, it was still ok. I felt that it was consistent with your comical style of humour established at the "lead", and I'm thinking that maybe this would be sort of like those low-budget campy comedy movies.
The narrators interaction with Sarah, I felt, establishes a plot element that you would be satirizing in later parts of the article. In adventure films they always try to insert some cheesy romance of the main character with a hot sexy female, and this is very good for satire.
"spontaneously vomiting" - I think this is where it begins to go bad. It was a break in humour style, from comical to toilet. I was like "uhhh...? Are you sure about this?"
This chapter doesn't help. I mean, WTF?
This is where it starts to get a bit too random.
I think the main problem is that the jokes have no continuity. The article starts off as a satire on adventure films, but turns into randomness.
I think David is a bit obvious. And this is a bit picky but I don't think the first person narrator would know about David's motives. So I'm thinking, it would be better if maybe you have David pull the main character aside to say something that indicates his motives, like, "How about we seize the whatchamacallit and split the money 50-50." or something like that. Anyway, do whatever you want as long as you make it more believable and more well-thought-out.
"That what I said to your mom last night" - Oh dear this is not good. I think as a rule, "your mum" jokes shouldn't appear in articles trying to go for VFH, unless it's a satire of other "your mum" jokes.
And the guy falling down the hill was random.
So were the guys rolling down the hill.
Grues. Are bad.
I also came across another problem. You may have too many characters, and I couldn't remember who was who without referring back to chapter 1. The thing is, the characters have nothing really memorable about them. It felt like there were 10 or 15 or them heaped into the chapter all at once. Therefore I recommend that you either, reduce the number of characters (or just focus on a few important ones in the storyline), or get distinctive images for the characters. You could also spend more time describing the characters, but that could end up being confusing, and the satire on cheesy character archetypes would be lost.
"French toast revolution" is a bit random. Would prefer "French revolution" or any normally boring book.
This chapter has too many random things to count.
This chapter was more ok than others, while I didn't find it especially funny, I wasn't especially turned off. Might wanna lessen up on the name-dropping.
This chapter was ok, but again I didn't find it especially funny.
"I told him a story and he killed himself" - Since you said this, the reader immediately thinks "what kind of story?" I found it quite bad that you just reference this thing and never pick it up again. It could be funny if you were really creative.
Velociraptors that suddenly show up without rhyme or reason, and are never heard from again, just says random.
More ok than others.
This chapter seems like it's trying to get itself together again. There is a hint of adventure film satire again, such as the main character's Americanness and manliness. I think this is good and I hope to see more jokes like this.
I don't like brackets, personally. I think they break the tone that you've worked so hard to establish. It would be better if they were footnotes, or if you just presented them in another way.
"Secretly, David began to think about his master plan" - your first person narrator is not omniscient (at least you didn't establish him to be), why would he know?
I think this is ok, but may again, suffer from too-many-character-ism. I don't know but I would expect the narrator to give more information about how he's doing.
See I was fine with the start of the article, but I did not like the middle and end bits. The reason, I think, is because random + random = not funny. Mr T. was a bit random, but I found that ok (while not especially funny) because up until that point that was only one thing. As the randomness accumulates, the article became less and less funny. On the other hand, random + serious = slightly more funny. You can't be random and crazy all the time, and you need to play the "straight man" regularly. To this I would recommend keeping only one or two of the internet meme jokes, and make your other jokes more normal or serious.
Most featured articles have a running joke or a main joke. Yours doesn't. So you seriously need to get the concept of your article together, and try to make all your jokes have a somewhat similar theme, or linked somehow. A lot of things are just referenced once, and never brought up again. Consistency helps decrease perceived randomness. So when you try to work something into the story, try to give the reader (and yourself) a good reason. If, for instance, you want to continue to write about internet memes, maybe you could make whatchamacallit connected to internet culture somehow? (Not recommended, I recommend a campy satire about adventure films.)
Prose and formatting:
Prose is reasonably good. Tone is fairly consistent. This is also the time where I attempt to do some proofreading.
begin out(our) descent.
John(n)y was shooting
You(')r(e) the one
too gruesomer than - shouldn't it be "more gruesomer than"?
One of my pet peeves is when people use "myself" randomly. "Myself am the only survivor left" is not right, and for the same reason, "Myself, Sarah and Frank were the only survivors left" is not right. Should be "Sarah, Frank, and I were the only survivors left". However I can see how that could be a problem to your whole sentence structure. So just treat this as the babbling of a grammar Nazi and don't change a thing unless you want to.
mouth (full stop) What
You have enough pictures, which is good. The last one was funny, and a bit creepy too. Maybe you could tie it into the text somehow? Try to explain why they all look alike or something? I didn't like the rock picture. From just looking at the picture without looking at the text I couldn't tell what it was. It looked like someone painted a humanoid figure onto a boulder. It didn't even look like Mr. T, as you would expect Mr T to be more muscular. Also didn't like the laser one. It's like saying Frank is supposed to look like that mouth.
A bit higher than your average.
Scoring is really, really arbitrary. Talk page, blah blah.