Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:The Woodburninator/Forest Whitaker's Lazy Eye

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 16:29, April 22, 2009 by Gerrycheevers (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Forest Whitaker's Lazy Eye

I'm not looking for much here. I'm just working on a new concept. Figure it will get deleted immediately after hitting mainspace, so I just want to see what someone else thinks. Woody On Fire! Wood burningTalking Woody Stalking Woody 06:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I gave it a quick glance-over, why not write an article on Forest Whitaker, but have his lazy eye be the focus, and the joke would be your ignoring of his acting career and accomplishments in favor of focusing on his lazy eye. —Sir Guildensternenstein 13:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
That's a great idea, can I steal it?--CrabPope 21:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The concept or the article title? Woody On Fire! Wood burningTalking Woody Stalking Woody 21:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think Woody would have first dibs on my brilliant idea, as I suggested it to him. —Sir Guildensternenstein 12:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, if you ever get bored of it Woodburninator, tell me pretty please --CrabPope 15:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC) EDIT: The 'Forest Whitaker' concept, not the 'Forest Whitaker's eye' concept.
We can definitely see. It's a good idea. If anyone else can do a review of this concept, however, I just want to see some thoughts and ideas on what is there now. Gracias. Woody On Fire! Wood burningTalking Woody Stalking Woody 21:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Cheevers99
This article is under review by
Gerry Cheevers.

Sayeth Gerry: shotgun!!
Humour: 8 average of sections
  • best of the lazy best: 6

okay, i see what you're doing here. as far as intentially bad sections go, this is pretty good, but it's got a few problems. i think you went with each paragraph coming from a different contributor. if that is the case, try to be more consistent within each paragraph. the first one is consistent until the end, when the spelling mistakes and stuff like 'fuckinglol' come into play. the second paragraph kind of argues with itself, which is fine. the third paragraph is disturbing, but clearly its supposed to be one line of vandalism, so if you think its okay as-is then i dont have a problem with it. the fourth paragraph is better, and more consistent overall. the last one again sounds a little contradictory. i think you should give this section a tune-up, trying to contrast the differences between paragraphs so it's clear to your reader what is going on.

  • actually folks: 8

good funny with forest whitaker actually cutting in. however, i think this section would sound much, much more official if it were actually coming from him. he might mention films he's been in. sentences like i dont see why it's such a big deal' could be more professional-sounding, to make it seem like whitaker is actually responding.

  • hold on a minute:10

great punchline, i actually haven't read a good 'punchline' article in quite a while. maybe instead of 'are you telling me that you have an article...' you say 'this website' or 'uncyclopedia'.

Concept: 8 5/5 points for a well-known actor being parodied.

3/5 points for execution. i like the way you went about this, i just think it needs some more polish in the vandalism section. also, this highly depends on uncyclopedia not having an article on forest whitaker himself, so perhaps you could convince an admin to protect that page if you make a good case. even if there is one created, the fake redlink works just as well. in general, i think more references closer to the real whitaker, such as his film/TV roles, should be mentioned at some point.

Prose and formatting: 7 like i said, i would prefer the prose in whitaker's section to be more official-sounding. the formatting works as-is.
Images: 7 good opening image. good closing punchline image. i dont think you need to add another one.
Miscellaneous: 0 see final comments
Final Score: 30 i awarded you 0 points as a miscellaneous score, becasue you already had 30 points and i feel like that's the most i can give you in this article's current state. i would say it's fine for mainspace, but if you worked on tweaking the vandalism section and improving the tone of the whitaker section, i would certainly support this on VFH. good job, good luck, and feel free to stop by my talk page with any questions.
Reviewer: SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 16:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects