Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnGuides:Being an American Television Producer

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit UnGuides:Being an American Television Producer

Bit of an experiment this one, hopfully some of the more subtle stuff comes across. thanks for taking a look:)--Sycamore (Talk) 10:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll write a review for this article, though I'm busy right now--so no-one else make one. I'm not an expereinced Pee reviewer, but I'll do my best.--Icons-flag-gbPigThe House of Pigs everyone hates me...

I gave this a quick once-over read, and think that it's excellent (you even reference an Antonioni film, for Christ' sake). I'd really like to give this a stab, but won't as it's reserved. Anyway, just thought you'd like to know. --Guildensternenstein 20:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey sorry bout this but I have been writing a review for this for a while and am finally done. If you want you can put yours below this! Sorry! ~SirTagstitVFHNotMPEEINGCPTRotMBFF 23:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh it's really not that big a deal but thanks though. --Guildensternenstein 06:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Humour: 6 This was decent humor-wise. It wasn't exactly laugh out loud in any parts, but it was a bit funny. It was a bit hard to read in some parts because the humor is very old and overused. That is more for concept though. As far as humor goes, I think it hasn't reached it full potential. I feel that with a bit more time, you could put more laughing out loud jokes in there to really pull this thing together.

I think at points it was a bit TOO dry and therefore hard to read. This article really stays safe and doesn't get too creative in directions it could go. I don't have MUCH to say on humor but it wasn't exactly hilarious, and I think if you went a bit further with your jokes it would be fixed. When you make a joke, just go a bit further with the humor and a bit more "out-there". Not for the whole thing of course but I always found a bit of sillyness in any article to be beneficial. I guess there is sillyness in here, but I think you could take it a bit further.

I am probably not explaining my thought right and if you don't understand just ask and I will give the explanation another shot. But overall, this was very solid and about average for humor I would say. One thing I would suggest though, is be a bit more creative in your topic and use a concept that is not as predictable, but that is more for concept I guess, so moving right along...

Concept: 4 I have read alot of your writing and have come to find you write on many topics that are predictable. This would normally be bad but you go into great detail in certain aspects and really save the article from being just another bash on a particular topic. This was no exception of course. As you are probably are familiar with, there are many jokes on producers in general and other entire articles written on them I think. It is tried and true, but really isn't creative. If you came up with a creative topic and used your style of writing you could make a really good article by the way I think.

Anyways though, for this one, I would just say, you have a topic that obviously has been written on before and I think instead of sticking with everything people make fun of about them, for example, style, general hate towards them, and money obsession, you should go out on other tangents to really expand the concept and pull together a more creative bit.

Oh, by the way, by creative I mean this, this, and this. If none of those link right I am sorry but I am sure you have read those before and know how to get to them. These are some of my favorites because they really are different from all the other ones. I am not saying you are NOT creative because you really are, I am just saying for this particular one it lacks creativity itself.

Prose and formatting: 9 Solid, really I would be scared to critique anything on format from a veteran (humor and concept were hard enough) and I really don't want to mess you up as far as that goes. I will TRY to correct some spelling and I may be wrong. But I think at the end when you say, "However this lot are difficult", it should be "However this lot IS difficult" because the subject, lot, is singular and needs a verb to match it.

I really didn't catch any other spelling errors otherwise. I have never heard of an UnGuide and searched for others and didn't find any. I may just be a retard and didn't look in the right places or you just might be trying to start a new thing, I am not sure. But I think this could be just Howto:Be an American Producer. But that is just my thought. Besides that, this article is pretty darn purty.

Images: 7 Solid pictures. I don't find them to be particularly hilarious but they are slightly funny and help tell the story. My favorite is definitely the house one. Besides that no real changes NEED to be made to the pictures, but if you really wanna go balls out, I would suggest making the captions funnier or making the pictures themselves a bit funnier. Your choice though.
Miscellaneous: 6.5 Averaged
Final Score: 32.5 I liked it. I think it isn't necessarily CREATIVE or HILARIOUS...but it was pretty and had a very solid writing style which made it look professional. VHF? Very possible I would say. I love creativity and am very tough on articles that have been "done" before, but the humor and niceness of this might pull it off. I would vote for it...well...weak for or abstain...definitely not against. If you have any questions just ask me on my talk page! Good luck!
Reviewer: ~SirTagstitVFHNotMPEEINGCPTRotMBFF 23:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - I know of no other article which deals with televison producing, nor any other which critically parodies televison producion on a such a broad level, based on common ownership and the people behind varous programs (notably producers). I don't really agree that this has been "done before" - there are other tv related articles, but none quite like this one.--Sycamore (Talk) 12:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I meant more on like a broad scale. Not just on this site. I checked and realized I was wrong about there being other topics on this site but I wasn't able to check when I was writing this. i probably would have bumped the concept up to 7 if I would've known. Sorry about that. ~SirTagstitVFHNotMPEEINGCPTRotMBFF 15:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools