Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Did I Decide to Audition for Big Brother?

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 14:52, October 12, 2008 by BlueYonder (talk | contribs)

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


edit Why?:Did I Decide to Audition for Big Brother?

Well it's time for my monthly why? and I need to know how good this is. Obviously the images are shit so any help with those would be much apreciated. Also if the whole thing is a total waste of time do let me know that too. Thanks in advance! SK Sir Orian57Talk Gay flag RotM 01:24 7 October 2008

Mind if I do it? I know you were dissapointed with the last review I did for you, but I'll try and be a bit more lenient this time, promise. BlueYonder GalaxyIcon - CONTACT
Do just tell me what you think, I was dissapointed last time cos I had thought that article was really good. After reading it back recently I'm surprised it was featured. Thanks! SK Sir Orian57Talk Gay flag RotM 20:17 7 October 2008
Sorry this took so long-a few things came up. Anyway, here she is: BlueYonder GalaxyIcon - CONTACT
Humour: 5.8 I won’t say too much here, since I’m actually writing this section last, and most of what I really want to say is covered in the other sections.

Anyway, as to humour, this article doesn’t do a terrible job, but it’s not really outstanding in any particular way either. I think this can partly be attributed to an underdeveloped concept and partly to a rather hindered prose (see the appropriate sections for more details). The article describes events that really don’t have much potential for humour and, consequently, don’t offer many laughs. That’s all, really-read on for more.

Concept: 5.5 Hmm…not too sure about this one, really. See, the article doesn’t really seem to give enough focus to either the actual events of the show or to the title question. This is a very delicate thing, I know, since I’m sure you didn’t want it to be overlong, and the coverage of the show’s aftermath is good, which is appropriate, I suppose, considering this might well be the time that the narrator most considers the title question. That said, however, I still feel the title question is still somewhat detached from the rest of the article; it would have been nice if he could have realised an answer, or list of possible answers, at the end, or, better still, if several events throughout the article could have indicated an answer/answers.

I won’t penalise you too heavily for that, since I know a lot of Whys are somewhat detached from their questions. However, I’m also a little disappointed with the rest of the concept; the events you chose to describe really aren’t all that interesting (which isn’t necessarily your fault; I’m not sure how interesting such events can be made). It’s quite disappointing that you don’t go more into the subject of ‘time inside’; I’m sure you have the capability to think of a series of interesting and funny events, and you could have really worked on the proposed shy personality of the narrator. And on that subject, it really would be more effective if you showed us the narrator’s personality (his shyness etc.) in example and let us figure out what it’s like for ourselves, instead of explicitly telling us what he’s like. Moving on, even if you chose not to do all that, you could also make the events you have covered more interesting; I really think you might have gone into things like violent reactions from viewers and animal lovers, a negative representation of the narrator appearing on the media (‘And the main headline tonight, Craig Woods has recently been declared the most boring person to have appeared on television, and is currently being hunted by the FBI as a potential animal abuser’), and the like. And those events when he’s getting interviewed are rather dull too; I really think they could have been made much more interesting (nervous breakdowns in the first interview, etc.). All in all, the concept is really a bit dull, and I’m sure you’re capable of improving it.

Prose and formatting: 5.7 I wish there wasn’t so much to cover in this one section...anyway, we’ll start off with grammar and spelling: come on, man! Seriously, the small but very noticeable grammatical errors are sprinkled over the page with rather annoying frequency-and the worst part is, I know you could have avoided them. I mean, the you’re that should be your, the lets that should be let’s, and, most prominently, the numerous missing commas (“I mean, I figured it would be funny…”; “I stepped into the booth, ending my sense of self respect…”; “Even now, as I stand outside the door,...”, to name but a few) could have all been avoided very easily, but, as it is, are very present and, despite their small nature, mar the effectiveness of the article rather significantly-the ones in the introductory paragraph, for instance, really soften the impact of the revelation that Dane is in fact a chimp (at least for me). Seriously, I think you need to take a bit of a blue pencil to that category.

Now, on to prose: not bad, I suppose, but given that it’s first person, I really think it could have been given more of a personality-it really doesn’t come across the voice of someone who’s been through a lengthy time of frustration and trial. I suppose you might have been afraid of overdoing it, so I’ll try not to penalize you too harshly for this, but do try to bring it to the forefront of your planning next time. And the prose as it is, as I said, isn’t bad, and does have a readable personality of its own, thought I think it would have been much more effective if you’d shown us that the narrator is shy and withdrawn, rather than explicitly telling us-and, perhaps, fleshed out that personality a bit more. And on the same subject, the use of the word ‘cathartic’ is really rather gratuitous-seriously, ‘relieving’ or ‘healing’ would have been just as effective-more so, probably, for people who don’t know what ‘cathartic’ means off the top of their head. You don’t need to use long words to show us you’re cultured. As to formatting: not too bad either, I suppose, but you seem to have a habit of spacing out sentences that could easily be part of the same paragraph-this especially applies to the sentences which make up the ‘future prospects’ section-I really think those could all have been drawn into the same paragraph. It’s much too divided as it is. As to this section as a whole-it’s not awful, but it does have some notable flaws that mar the article and should be dealt with as soon as possible if you’re interested in a feature.

Images: 5 Like you said yourself, the article is rather meagre in this section, but I dare say you were pressed for time. To improve, I’d suggest, to start, the rather obvious move of finding something related to Big Brother (preferably the logo or shots from some previous shows) followed by some photoshopping-perhaps with emphasis on the chimp you keep referring to. The image of a chimp participating in ‘Shower Hour’, coupled with a funny caption, could do the article wonders. The inclusion of some famous people involved in Big Brother-both contestants and directors-in the images should also do some good. Given the numerous references to Davina McCall, some Photoshop manipulation of her couldn’t hurt. In addition, you also may want to, in the images, make a play on the name ‘Big Brother’ shares with the Nineteen Eighty-Four character. I know I would, anyway. I really hope that helps.
Miscellaneous: 5.5 Averaged, like I always do.
Final Score: 27.5 To answer your question at the beginning: no, I don’t think this article is a complete waste of time, but I think you do put yourself in danger of making something like that if you’re going to force yourself to churn these things out when you aren’t certain of your idea, which you seem to be with this article. This article is hindered by a rather underdeveloped concept and some rather disappointing grammatical errors, both of which show evidence of it having been done in a rush; articles like that rarely turn out good. Give yourself a bit more time, flesh out your concept, and make sure you’re more confident in your idea next time. Hope this helped, and please don't see it as harsh-just being honest.
Reviewer: BlueYonder GalaxyIcon - CONTACT
Personal tools