Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/WTC7

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 04:33, April 28, 2009 by Syndrome (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit WTC7

ScottBurnan 11:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Concept: 4 Concept first. Is WTC7 a good subject for an article? Sure. Is the way you're presenting it good? I don't know. How are you presenting it? The article (at least the first half) feels like it was written by two people, one who wrote it for Wikipedia and accidentally put it here, and another who came along and vandalized it with conspiracy theory dribble. Ask yourself, who wrote this article and where? Was it written on Wikipedia by a government supporter? If it a lunatic pamphlet you found lying in the street? The first thing you need to do to improve this piece is to give it a consistent tone and stick with it for the whole article.

So I take it you believe 9/11 was an inside job and you want to write an article that conveys this. That's fine. That may actually be better than the other way around, a normal person trying to parody a conspiracy nut, since it's easier to satirize things that are more popular. Both approaches would work, just one at a time.

The easiest thing you could do to this end is take the literal dictionary definition of irony and run with it: Say one thing and mean the other. Just be subtle about it. The way the article is now, you're saying one thing and bloody well meaning it. The text that you've wikilinked to "conspiracy theorist" isn't funny, it's uncomfortable because it's too blunt. As a reader, it's hard to find things funny if I have to think to hard about what you mean. If you had posted this to a poorly-designed Geocities page instead of to Uncyclopedia, I would have been able to read this, accept that you mean every word of it, and process it accordingly as either unintentionally hilarious conspiracy bunk or chilling facts. But since it's on Uncyclopedia, I have to think, "Okay, I'm reading this, but it's not a joke... Is it? No, it's pretty serious." And that just kills it.

So here's my suggestion: Write this as if you're trying to discredit the conspiracy theory but "accidentally" affirm it as you go. I point you to the article on Michael Jackson for inspiration. Here's an excerpt:

Cquote1 Finally, people are freaked out by the fact that Michael owns the bones of the famous crippled deformed guy, John Merrick. But what they fail to realize is that he does not actually own the bones of any deformed man named John Merrick. The man known as the Elephant Man, whose bones Michael keeps as a souvenir of his tireless charitable work on behalf of deformed children, was actually named Joseph Merrick. This goes to show that these agenda-driven detractors don't even know what they're talking about. If you are going to dig for ways to attack poor Michael, you should be sure of your accuracy first. Cquote2

See what I'm saying? The narrator of this article tries to defend Michael Jackson for owning the Elephant Man's remains, but the best he can produce is a petty "you forgot Poland" kind of detail. This is the kind of thing I think you should aim for. Because right now, the article is a smack-you-upside-the-head-with-a-blunt-weapon kind of unfunny.

Prose and Formatting: 6 Man, this reminds me of an old Subgenius pamphlet, the way everything is crowded together with images and quotes. I'd recommend a little spell-chek (maybe enlist our resident Proofreading Service when you're ready) and change the way you do quotes. The was the quotes are stuck there in the middle of the article is ugly. Look at UnNews to see how they handle quotes: They usually italicize what they're quoting, and write it into a sentence so it flows with the article.

Also, scattering some links in there would help. The way you have it now, you're linking lists or whole sentences, so there are strips of blue among the black text. It looks weird.

Images: 3 I don't like to say this, but some of those images have got to go, specifically the ones with the low production value. The way real images are overlaid with cheap edits looks just weird. I mean, look at that picture of Tony Blair on HTBFANJS. Not good. Seriously, remove some of the worse images. It will make you seem less crazy and make your article prettier. The photo of the diet coke is pretty cool, and the chop of Jane Standley isn't bad either. The rest... ugh.

I also recommend you blow up the red picture to its full size of 280px. It's hard to tell what this picture is, but zoomed out like that, it just looks kinda gross.

Humour: 3 Let's break this down:

Lead: 2/10 The astute reader will notice that you're going to focus on the conspiracy theories from this, and probably in favor of them. Okay, nothing much to say about that, but then my expectations take a nosedive when you mention Rosie O'Donnel. That's a tired Uncyclopedia meme, like Oscar Wilde. I half-expect you to say that Mr. T did it somewhere along the line. Not really, but you get my point.

Background: 4/10 That first list is mildly amusing. Good use of escalation, could be better (see HTBFANJS). It seems a little excessive to have two such lists right next to each other, though.

November 9: 2/10 The title is cute, but it doesn't belong. It's think kind of joke an IP would add; kind of funny in its own right, but doesn't flow at all with the article. I see you've chosen to lead this section with facts. I hate facts, unless they're made to be funny, but no, these are just facts.

Barry Jennings: 4/10 I don't know who Barry Jennings is so I don't quite know what to make of this. But again, it seems like you're just recounting facts here. The quote is mildly amusing, but it doesn't seem to flow very well from talking about Barry Jennings to quoting someone who can't form a coherent sentence.

Advanced Reporting: 2/10 Okay, now this part is just too preachy. There's no jokes here, except for how Jane killed herself after being harassed, but that's really not funny. This is what I was talking about in the concept section. Just uncomfortable. The same applies to the rest of this header. There's no jokes, just you presenting the conspiracy theory stuff and being a little snarky about it. I could be wrong, but I'm inclined to think that you're just making up names like "Silverscum" and "Nigro". Doesn't help. The "seduce" part is a good faith attempt to be funny, but it comes off as more of a roll-your-eyes bad pun.

Controlled Demolition: 3/10 The lead here is kind of meh. I don't know. You might also want to say something about how a lot important case files investigating banks and such were lost in WTC7, because they were confidential and not backed up.

Thermite: 2/10 I see what you're trying here, but is comes off as more bitter than funny. This section doesn't really bring anything to the article, which is ironic because an article about WTC7 would certainly need to mention thermite.

Diet Coke and Mentos: 5/10 This is good. Science is good. Unfortunately, it descends back to the blunt "so there" statements that fill the article. I like the idea that Diet Coke and Mentos can be applied to WTC7, but the execution is lacking.

Improvability Score: 4 Um, ignore the "improvability score" thing. This is just a miscellaneous score. I wanted the concept to show up first so I stole someone else's template. I wanted the humor section to come after that, but then I would have to make my own template, and that would be work...
Final Score: 20 This article gives me the impression that you wanted to write about an important issue, but didn't know how or what to write about. As it is, it needs a pretty good overhaul. Please consider my advice about the concept, because being preached at isn't funny. Ask at Image Request if you need help with your images. Sorry if this review came off as harsh. I need a hug.
Reviewer: --C:\syndrome\_ 04:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects