Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnNews:Adam Sandler expresses concerns that his next film 'might not be shitty enough' (2nd opinon)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
|Concept:||5.5||The subject matter is appropriate, but it has too much of a "hatecrufty" attack-article feel to it. Its good to be hostile to the subject matter, and there are much worse ways than general hostility to write an article. However, attack-y articles generally get boring really quick, and aren't funny when one has been exposed to excessively high levels of nonsense (i.e. anyone reading this site). As a persons exposure to one form of humor increases, generally the less funny they will find that type of humor and the more funny they will find other types of humor. That is why more high-brow articles are generally preferred, as there is a surplus of nonsense on this site.|
The article just has too much of a one blunt joke being used over and over and over again feel to it, along with some filibustering feel to it. Basically, you come on too strong and blunt and say too strong throughout the article. That comes across as hatecrufty at times, and gives it an sorta ED (but without the child pr0n, memes, and image spam functions) feel it. Granted, your article isn't ED type bad, but it could use some work.
Try to insult the subject a bit more subtlety, don't have Adam Sandler say things, "I sort of get high on the thought of just how glorious I am in all my crowd-pleasing ineffectual shittiness'. That is not funny, and way to blunt. He should not be describing his own work as "shittiness".
This article will probably need a rewrite, mere "toning it down" will probably leave it (and most other crass articles) as worse than before. Its needs improvement in the underlying concept, which will require basically a new article.
|Prose and Formatting:||6.5||I don't see any mistakes in grammar, but the long, drawn out, italicized quotes give it an ugly feel. You might want to add more links, the lack of links is giving it a sort of ugly feel to it.|
You might also consider shortening the sentence length, especially in the quotes; overly long sentences are harder to read and conflict with tone of this article.
|Images:||6||The image is ok, but a photo shopped poster of the movie under discussion would be much better. Unfortunately, photo shopping is difficult, and you might not be able to make a good one. You might try begging for one Uncyclopedia:RadicalX's_Corner|
|Humour:||4.5||I really didn't find this funny. Like I said in the concept section, it was too blunt and attacky. Here are some ideas on how to improve the humor.|
Start deadpan This might require a change in the title. In fact, the title sets the tone way to much in over-the-top-attack-the-subject-with-a-sledge-hammer-wielded-by-a-drunken-gorilla style. The overly strong intro really ruins the article, and combined with harsh and bombastic tone, might cause the reader not to notice some jokes and refences.
Break up some of the longer quotes, and simplify (dumb) the speech of Sandler a bit.
Possibly reference Sandler's stupid songs or other annoying things that Sandler does. I.e. the Lovable Loser character, the fact he plays the same characters in all his movies. Try to focus on examples, not broadcasting the fact that he sucks; if the examples work, then the reader should know Sandler sucks and doesn't need to be told constantly.
|Improvability Score:||5.5||This article might be hard to improve. It has some potential, but the delivery mode (i.e. underlying concept) needs alot of work.|
|Final Score:||28||good luck.|
|Reviewer:||--Mnbvcxz 18:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)|