Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnNews:Sub-par apocalypse disappoints many (2)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
In for a second pee review. Is this article funny or not? If it isn't give me all the advice you can think of. If it is, still be helpful and give advice. Thanks! Staircase CUNt 01:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Would you let me review this again? ~~Sir Fightstar Rocks! CUN 23:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really see the point. It's like getting the same opinion twice. Staircase CUNt 02:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
|Prose and |
The writing style,
layout and overall
|6||Writing style: Firstly let me say there is nothing wrong with the writing style. The problem is though that it is not quite an encyclopaedic tone, or even the tone of newsprint, yet it is a notch above a conversational one, or above tabloid newsprint. I'm reading it and expecting something more to come from the writing. And because of the issues with the reading it seems to dull down the punchy-ness of the piece.
Here's an experiment that I'd like you to try. Sit facing a wall, or even better the corner of a room, and read the piece aloud. (In order to avoid having people look at you like you're a complete nutter, don't do this at work or when anybody else is around.)
By doing this it gives you a better idea of what it reads like to somebody else, as you're hearing the text rather than just seeing it, and when people read they give your text a voice. This might help you rewrite this to get the maximum potential.
The second thing I'll get you to do is when you read assume that you are your audience. Okay, now assume that you are a cross between Rocky Balboa and Barney the Dinosaur. In other words you know what the words mean, but you know nothing about what the report is about. This means that you have to educate in order to entertain. I'm going to cover this more in concept, but just remember that now as a tip for revising.
Spelling and grammar:
Its is a possessive pronoun. It means that it is something that belongs to the subject. It's is a contraction. It substitutes for the words It is. So it would be correct to say It's playing with its weiner. It would be incorrect to say And now its putting it's fingers in it's mouth.
Otherwise no real issues with spelling and grammar that I picked up.
Layout: It's a block of text with an image in the top right hand corner. What else can I say? The image is in the right place. Given that this is a "newsprint" article that's fine. You could potentially look at sticking this in a table and having this run down as columns, to make it a more "news papery" feel. That will escalate it to a better layout, but again there's nothing wrong with it.
Overall appearance: The major issue that I have with the appearance is the italic quotations. Although it is not incorrect, because this is a quote heavy piece it does mean that there is a lot of italic to get through, and it's a bit of an eyesore. I didn't like that much.
How good an idea
is behind the article?
|4||I don't know why, but I just feel that this is a fairly dull and overused concept, and it takes a bit of work on behalf of the reader to work out what the point is - so much so that any overarching humour is lost in the work to get to it.
I read through it and didn't laugh, as I was trying to work out what actually happened.
Was there an end-of-world prediction and nothing happened. Did the world actually end but somehow kept going?
We have this quote from a hot dog stand guy going on about his parakeet. Then we get onto a quote suggesting God is a bumbling idiot. We start to talk about a Christian loss of faith but end up going on about Obama, and then back to Christians becoming Satanists.
How funny is it?
Why is it funny?
How can it be funnier?
|4||Continuing straight on from concept, In HTBFANJS it mentions a quote from Colbert stating that "...all good humour involves status change." I won't go through the entirety of HTBFANJS - I'll leave that for you to do. But what has happened here it appears is that you've had a concept for a status change article. God, the almighty powerful blah blah blah, is actually an idiot. That's fantastic. But the only way that status change works is to have a consistent comic reality.
I'm getting a little highbrow, so I apologise for that, but a comic reality refers to the world that you portray in your writing.
Now we're talking about God, so we'll use that article as an example. This is the article as of a couple of revisions ago. Now if you read through this (and you don't have to read through all of it. Trust me, I haven't) you'll begin to see that this doesn't work as there is no unified concept within the article. It jumps from one topic to the next like a speed freak with ADHD. In fact that's probably who wrote the bulk of it.
Now by the same token look at this version of the same article. Now this second one was featured. It still isn't perfect, but for the first half of the article it remains with a fairly consistent reality. What they start with is what continues to run through.
For another example have a look at Doctor Who. Now whether you like the topic or not, this at one stage was a featured article. It has since been built upon. Then current version is about three times as long, and has two different lists of ten doctors. The featured version is shorter, but keeps a consistent feel.
How are the images?
Are they relevant,
with good quality
|5||It's a damned good image. I think it may have been Featured Image at some stage previously. Shame that there's only one image, and it's not original, and the caption doesn't really add anything to it. If you don't add another image, (which at the length that this is you could get away with it) then I'd suggest that you drop the caption, increase the size, and let the image talk for itself.|
The article's overall
quality - that indefinable
|6||So in short, no the article isn't funny. Could it be made to be funny? Yes, but only with a decent amount of work. You've obviously taken a bit of time to polish this up in regards to ensuring that everything is correct on you formatting, grammar, etc. For the work that you've put into it I'm happy to bump this up with the miscellaneous score.|
How much can it be
improved and what
are the most important
areas to work on.
|25||Go back to the start. What are you trying to get to with the article. What works well in the article. What works poorly. Take yourself back a few steps and then start writing it again, but write it with a clear and consistent idea of what you're trying to get to. If you find yourself digressing, then stop and pull it back again.
You have the kernel of something that can work, but it will take effort to get it there.
|Reviewer:||Pup t 07:56, 24/07/2009|