Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Is the ironing board out (second opinion)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Since the first pee review recommended a namespace and format change, and I'm kinda on the fence about whether it really needs it, I want to get a second opinion on whether that would really be necessary. 22:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
|A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article|
is being reviewed by:
UU - natter
(While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead).
(Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole).
|Humour:||6||I have to say, amongst all the shouting I didn't find much really funny here. There's room for it, and you do come full circle quite nicely, but it didn't really nail it for me.|
|Concept:||7||Hmm, domestic argument, plenty of shouting and so forth, a fairly direct route here, no curveballs. Solid rather than spectacular.|
|Prose and formatting:||7||Difficult to peg, this one. Yeah, the spelling's OK, the grammar and writing suits the character fine and so forth. But atricles with a lot of short sections like this do look kinda ugly, even though the formatting is technically OK. Perhaps consider the use of some sub-headings ===of this type=== to break it up?|
|Images:||7||Average. They're all relevant, and well captioned, but none of them add much to the article. Can you find/'chop one of an ironing board in front of a TV or something?|
|Miscellaneous:||6.8||Averaged per tradition, or old charter, or something.|
|Final Score:||33.8||It's not bad, and can get better. See comments below.|
|Reviewer:||--Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)|
OK, I reckon the answer to your question lies in the choice of voice. If you want to keep the single voice in the article and derive humour from the implied responses, this format is fine. Moving to UnScripts would really need the voice of Jen to be added to the piece, which could give you a lot more potential, but could also be tricky. Depends how confident you feel with writing a second character, I'd say.
However, I do agree it needs a bit more content whichever way you go. At the moment, you have a guy shouting at his girlfriend, which is OK, but not too many big laughs. Expand on some of the issues here. For instance, you touch on other issues such as the cat, the curtains etc - elaborate a little. Leave it vague enough, you don't have to spell things out - you can imply some absurd situations quite nicely by supplying enough details to intrigue but not connecting them. "And what about your fucking cat and next door's lawn sprinkler? My pliers are still rusty from that and we never found my fucking baseball glove!" That kind of thing (that's a weak example, but you get the idea). That would also help to break up the "listy" feel of so many short blocks of text and headers.
Also, it's obvious that this is not the happiest of relationships, and also that the protagonist is a bit dumb and overbearing. So hint at things he's not spotting in the relationship maybe? Such as affairs with repairmen or something. He's a big oaf, so I'm sure he can blurt out some really big clues that he still fails to notice.
Oh, and it took me a couple of sections before I worked out that it was all the one voice - I wondered if the headers were his girlfriend, and then if they were alternating, and then finally got it. Making it a little clearer, possibly by having her name in a couple of titles, might not go amiss. Or maybe it's just me.
Basically, I think you need to build on the argument, and try to wring some humour out of suggesting other problems, and hinting much more strongly at them. That could take a decent but kinda one-dimensional article and really push it, know what I mean?