Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:MacMania/Cartoon physics

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit User:MacMania/Cartoon physics

Seems a bit dry to me. MacManiasig.png MacManiasig-cheerios.png MacManiasig-holmes.png MacManiasig-starwars.png MacManiasig-firefly.png MacManiasig-pixar.png MacManiasig-oregon.png MacManiasig-lesmiz.png MacManiasig-doctor.png 16px-HalLogo.png Portal16px.png UncycLensFlare16px.pngDalek16px.png 16px-ChekhovSig.png16px-JapanSig.png Sir MacMania GUN[15:34 18 Aug 2009]

Oh, and note a coincidental similarity with Laws of Physics, not written by me, but with similar ideas. MacManiasig.png MacManiasig-cheerios.png MacManiasig-holmes.png MacManiasig-starwars.png MacManiasig-firefly.png MacManiasig-pixar.png MacManiasig-oregon.png MacManiasig-lesmiz.png MacManiasig-doctor.png 16px-HalLogo.png Portal16px.png UncycLensFlare16px.pngDalek16px.png 16px-ChekhovSig.png16px-JapanSig.png Sir MacMania GUN[23:33 18 Aug 2009]

MINI REVIEW: I might review this if I hadn't spent more time studying English than physics. But here's a sort of mini-review. Overall, I love this article. I think explaining the ridiculous in pseudoscientific terms is very funny. I really liked "necks are likely to be stretched the furtherest" especially with the pic, and "has been attained only by far more intelligent lifeforms, such as bunnies and coyotes." Maybe a few more bits like that could lighten up the science stuff. (I like the Disney car floating for three seconds too).

I didn't find the "What the H stands for is a subject of much mystery," funny. That's really the only section I didn't like and you might want to think about cutting it. I did think the History section could be shorter, as I found myself waiting for the "good stuff" (Principles and implications parts such as cartoon character violating gravity if they don't think about it). I would really like to see a pic showing a cartoon character who walks off the edge of a cliff and suddenly realizes it--an animated gif might be even better. I don't know if cartoon characters being obviously killed in one scene and then being alive in the next would fit--I guess that's more cartoon biology. And this might just be me, but I like pics better when they aren't all on the right. The magazines I've seen put some on the left, some on the right.

Please post a note on my talk page when this is rewritten because I want to see it! Miley Spears 22:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


This is much better than the Laws of Physics and I'd vote for it as it is but I'd also agree with the above - the history section isn't nearly as good as the actual physics which is excellent. But if you lost the history the whole would be a bit short and you'd need some more science.
Physics not really being my thing the only thing I could suggest is multiple universes since so many cartoons seem to feature dozens of identical twins - usually tortoises racing Bugs Bunny, as I recall. Oh, and there's a red link to Bugs Bunny which annoys pedants. Good luck with it, I'll review it for you if no one better qualified takes an interest.--Sog1970 10:32, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
Symbol comment vote Comment. Yeah, the history seems rather forced, so I might just add more pseudo-science. Cartoon biophysics (as per MS) sounds good; maybe the ACME corporation is an economical consequence of ACME's unique cartoon engineering. But I'll probably incorporate this stuff after the Review. Signed after a slight delay, MacManiasig.png MacManiasig-cheerios.png MacManiasig-holmes.png MacManiasig-starwars.png MacManiasig-firefly.png MacManiasig-pixar.png MacManiasig-oregon.png MacManiasig-lesmiz.png MacManiasig-doctor.png 16px-HalLogo.png Portal16px.png UncycLensFlare16px.pngDalek16px.png 16px-ChekhovSig.png16px-JapanSig.png Sir MacMania GUN[17:15 6 Sep 2009]
And, of course, colliding worldsheets leading to cross-overs. But I digress. MacManiasig.png MacManiasig-cheerios.png MacManiasig-holmes.png MacManiasig-starwars.png MacManiasig-firefly.png MacManiasig-pixar.png MacManiasig-oregon.png MacManiasig-lesmiz.png MacManiasig-doctor.png 16px-HalLogo.png Portal16px.png UncycLensFlare16px.pngDalek16px.png 16px-ChekhovSig.png16px-JapanSig.png Sir MacMania GUN[17:16 6 Sep 2009]

I swear on the grave of Christopher Columbus that I will review this today-ish. --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 18:47, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Concept: 6 Long story short: Yeah, it's a bit dry.

I just made my own Pee Review template so I could discuss the concept first. I hope you're happy. In general writing seriously about something silly is a good technique. A good example in this vein is Japanese High Schools. So what's the problem here? I'd have to say that you went a little too far with being serious. I mean, there are an awful lot of similarities between this article and the Wikipedia article on cartoon physics. There's a fine line between deadpan humor and just telling it like it is. It's easy to dismiss this article as being "serious", like you say in the footnotes.

What is there to do to fix it? Perhaps the reason this request has been in the queue for so long is because it's not easy. I'm really struggling for suggestions here. What it needs is something unpredictable. A reader might see the title and the lead and think "oh, that's clever, an academic treatment of cartoons" and be able to guess the rest of the content of the article. I'm not saying you should write randomly, but throw us a curveball once in a while. Personally I liked the diversion about H-theory. Perhaps you could give a brief biographical sketch of a cartoon character and how they use cartoon physics to their advantage.

Humor: 5 The lead feels kinda bland. Maybe you could throw in a quote from the detractors you mentioned to serve as a reality check about the silliness of cartoon physics? Such things typically work later in the article, but I think it would be acceptable here. Also, it's a little confusing how you say these phenomena are "torturously frequent" when at the end you say that they are untestable and have no application whatsoever. I guess that would make them like neutrinos, eh?

The History section discourages the reader from finishing the article with the dry background info. Hard as it may be, I'd suggest killing parts of the third and fourth paragraph for the sake of cutting to the meat of the article. I didn't recognize half of the names mentioned and I'm probably slightly more knowledgeable about cartoons than your average Joe the Plumber, and I doubt the average reader is going to care about them when there's cartoon wackiness to be had below.

The sad fact about the Gravitation part is that although sort of generally amusing, there don't seem to be any jokes or punchlines in there. You're just describing what happens in scientific terms. Such a thing is hard to do with an encyclopedic tone, which is why you need to use quotes and weasel words for a break from the constraints of your form. You could also talk about that one trick Bug Bunny does where someone runs through a hollow log off a cliff, then looks down and runs back through the log before they fall, then Bugs turns the log around while they're in it! Hee hee. I love that.

What about extra dimensions? This section isn't so bad, but suffers in the same way the others do. What happens to items in the LWED when the velocity drops to zero? There's a pun on "animation" to be made here but it keeps eluding me. It might be funny if you said something about how a character's 5th finger stays in the LWED, allowing him to access items. Then again, it might not be.

Quantum locking: The Feynman quote is amusing, although it's not clear to me what the deal is with the accent. And when you say "experiments", it's not clear if you mean real ones or thought ones. If you wanted to, you could make a dig at Road Runner's intelligence here, saying that he doesn't have the brain power to count as an observer and thus does not effect the locking.

Optical implications is pretty dry. I think you should say something about why one would want to do this and how they would go about doing it, as I don't remember this and it's not clear what the consequences would be. Is it invisible paint or something? Well obviously, the instead of absorbing the photons or reflecting them directly, the paint puts a spin on them which is righted by the wake it creates by the time it reaches the viewer (SPORTS ANALOGY). Obviously.

Questions on validity: You're really gentle here when saying that it's all bunk. You don't need to sugarcoat anything. Tell us what you really think! And maybe you could tell us how the cartoon characters feel about possibility that their physics are invalid.

Prose and Formatting: 9 You have practically a solid column of images, which looks a-pretty-pretty weird. Throw some to the left to break up the monotony. If it were me, I'd move the 2nd, 4th and 5th ones. My other minor gripe is that you mix your footnote(s) with your reference(s), although I suppose there aren't enough of them to justify separate sections.
Images: 6 Meh. Not bad screencaps. On that one image, I'd suggest moving the quote from Chuck into the sky where it would be easier to read, as right now it's strewn across various shades of grey. And on the image of the tunnel, I think you should put the screen caps side by side and allow the image more horizontal space in the article, because right now it looks like two images.
Miscellaneous: 7 See also Physics doesn't exist, it's all about Gnomes. Not my favorite article, but it may give you some inspiration.
Final Score: 33 It's a tough subject to write about. I had some suggestions about other things you could touch upon like gravitational waves and stuff, but I'm withholding them because you don't want the article too long (at the expense of the joke:length ratio) or too technical (although of course, more techinical jargon would help if it were funny). Good luck improving this one.
Reviewer: --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 23:23, October 3, 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects