Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:YesTimeToEdit/French wimple stitchers announce strike

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit UnNews: French wimple stitchers announce strike

Review, anyone, please? Be gentle, I haven't written in over a year, I'm rusty. Does this have any merit at all? - [21:56 3 August 2010] PlebYettie

Masaru

PEE REVIEW IN PROGRESS

Hyperbole is engaged in the dual processes
of giving you his opinion and pretending you care.

I'm finally going to do this now. Sorry for the wait! Tinymasaru.gifpillow talk 17:17, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Humour: 5 Hey Yettie! Sorry about my very, very late Pee Review - I was pull-your-hair-out busy for a while, and then I was in an alcoholic stupor for a while, and now I am mildly hung over and ready to get down to brass tacts.

So... this is a tricky one. The overarching "concept" joke of this UnNews is that it exists in a world where wimples are actually important, and where there are wimple unions and wimple analysts. And I guess we can add to that the joke that wimple is a funny word.

I have some concerns about that concept, because I feel like, honestly, it's not the funniest idea ever. The execution would have to be mind-blowing for that to make me laugh. Your execution here is merely good. So, I'm going to give you the bottom line right here up top: I have serious doubs that this is worth any further work. You've written a perfectly good UnNews that's going to join the mass of perfectly good articles that don't make feature; time to give yourself a pat on the back and move on.

But, in case you really want to pursue this one, and for the sake of future articles, here's my blow-by-blow:

  • Paragraph one: Two comments. First, why do we have a transgender nun in here, why is he the one telling the story, and what does he have to do with the wimple strike? This feels perilously close to just dropping the word "gay" into an article because people might get a cheap laugh out of sexual deviance. I'd lose it. Second, I think it's very important to specify that the GSAE's wimples are being accused of causing rashes - not wimples in general. It took me a while before the article made that clear, and that was a while when I was being confused instead of amused.
  • Paragraph two: The acronyms GSAE and FAN should both be described in the same paragraph, probably paragraph 1. The problem with this paragraph is that it contains very few jokes. Other than the overarching joke - that a serious press release pertaining to wimples would exist - the only joke is a casual reference to a "wimple shortage," which is amusing, but not enough in and of itself to justify this long paragraph. Try to shy away from "filler"; every single sentence in your article should either be telling a joke or leading to a joke, not merely supporting the overarching concept.
  • Paragraph three: Mike's comments are funny, but I still have no idea, for the life of me, what he's doing in the article. He's not part of the GSAE or the FAN - he's just some weird character thrown into the midst of everything to comment on it? I don't know. Mother Supreme's hysterical overreaction does seem like a good parody of uptight "think of the children" Christian women - until she says "oral herpes," which shatters the parody and hurts the joke. If you're going to create an "oh-I-am-so-outraged-I-think-I-shall-be-faint" character, you can't have her say "oral herpes."
  • Paragraph four: I definitely thought "Benedict's Knees-Up Sunday" was funny. Honestly, that's probably a funnier idea for an UnNews than the wimple shortage is. I also liked the way you avoided defining exactly what the holiday consists of: it's often funnier to imply than to be too explicit. Nice job here.
  • Paragraph five: The beginning of this paragraph seems like filler, although the phrase "wimple disaster" is funny. The Winnie the Pooh stuff - I can't figure out for the life of me why that's there. It doesn't relate to the story. I guess it's supposed to illustrate the point that the GSAE organizes harsh reprisals, but that's not made clear, and burning Winnie the Pooh books isn't really an example of reprisals. I kind of see where you're going - angry, badass nuns - but this isn't the right way to do it.
  • Paragraph six: The joke that nuns are angry badasses is predictable but amusing. The joke that the wimple stitchers are equal badasses who want to declare total war on the nuns... I don't know. That's not really satirical of any real-life analogue, is it? It feels a little random.
  • Paragraph seven: The first sentence is completely throwaway (except as it supports the overarching concept, that wimples are an important industry). The concluding joke - Yettie, I don't get it. What? Why is a mime-slash-monk giving a verbal quote? What's the joke here - that monks have never met a woman? How does that sum up the wimple issue? It's a strange way to end the article.
Concept: 5 Like I said, and I know this isn't the most helpful advice, but I don't know far an article about a wimple stitching strike can possibly take you.

Ways to tweak the concept? Well, one possibility is that instead of setting it in a universe where wimples are important, you could make it clear that wimples aren't important and that this strike is the ultimate tempest in a teapot - a group of maybe three stuffy French guys in a conflict with one or two convents. That would give you the added benefit of poking fun at your characters' cluelessness and self-importance in a world where virtually no one cares about them. I think that concept might make for a funnier article - but, honestly? Still not a very funny article. I'm racking my brain, but I can't see any way anyone's ever going to get a feature out of wimples. They're just not topical enough. But, hey, let's hope somebody takes that as a challenge.

Prose and formatting: 8 For the most part, the prose is fine. In the first sentence, I'd remove the comma after the word "first." Remove or substitute the few red links scattered around. I think three pictures is too many for an article this length, and I'd probably lose the sexy nun; even though she's nice to look at, she's (very admittedly) not related to the article in any way. Also, the "armed nuns" picture hangs off the bottom at my resolution, suggesting you might do well to put in a "Sources" section, even if your source is fake.
Images: 6 I think they're all right. The silly nun popping into the frame is silly enough to smile at but not silly enough to ruin the article. The armed nuns fit with your "badass nun" joke, so they're good. The sexy nun, like I said, is nice to look at but ultimately a pointless distraction that doesn't really enhance the article, and I'd lose her.
Miscellaneous: 7 Seven?
Final Score: 31 It's good to have you back!! I'm going to look at this article as sort of you "cracking your knuckles" in preparation for your glorious return. It's a perfectly decent UnNews, but I wouldn't spend any more time on it. Better to start something fresh, I think. Good luck!
Reviewer: Tinymasaru.gifpillow talk 17:52, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects