Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/You Are Ugly

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 06:52, October 7, 2009 by PuppyOnTheRadio (talk | contribs)

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


edit You Are Ugly 01:45, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to review this, and given what happened last time I said I would review something and didn't use a template to say it I am in here, so get stuffed. I mean it! Hope that works. Pup t 18:14, 6/10/2009

Thankyou for being more clear about it. I apologize, as I am only a lowly noob in this cruel uncyclopedic world, and beg that your l33tness will not pwn me. yours sincerely, (in l33t-speak) --Matfen815 20:17, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Humour: 6 I went into this with low expectations, and I wasn't dissappointed. Uh, maybe that didn't come out the right way...

I looked at this and saw that it had been put up for submission by an IP. As a general rule IP edits are fairly crappy. There's a substantial amount of vandalism and unfunny profanity and blah blah blah. Also I would expect that it would be written by someone who doesn't know the concepts involved in HTBFANJS, assuming that they even know that it exists.

So to come across an article that is written by an unregistered user (you notice I'm avoiding the term "IP edit" now... subtle but significant change. It conveys a meaning that you have achieved a particular level of respect even though you have not actually registered yourself as a user and therefore become part of the uncyclopedia community, and at the same time subtly suggests that you should become part of the community. It is very subtle though, so it works on a subliminal level and doesn't need to be explained. Where was I?) that is actually funny is a surprise. And this is what you have acheived.

So what I will focus on here is not what you have acheived, but unfortunately what you haven't. It needs to be longer. At the moment it is the stub of an article that shows a lot of promise, but it needs a lot more, but there is also a proviso I will add on to this.

This article goes outside of our... Ummm... Politeness policy, or maybe it was courtesy. Either way we aim to keep these funny without being insulting. You is an example of where we have skirted the line, partially because we have created an imaginary third party talking on behalf of the reader who by proxy this fictional character becomes the focal point of the criticism.

Concept: 5.5 I have a tendency to blend this area and humour together. Just deal with it.

The second thing I will point at as a criticism is that concept means that you are drawn into a fiirst person perspective. While I have no issue with first person per se, the usage of it has been a cause for concern in the past, potentially because of the frame. In HTBFANJS frames are discussed and why and how we use them. Uncyclopedia is a parody of an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedic style is third person, and generally as neutral in perspective as you like. Nobody here thinks about neutrality for any longer than a gin and tonic would last in the middle of a detox in the Sahara. But the first person tense...

So I've come to the point where I am saying to myself "Why has this person put this article up for PEE review?" Now there are two answers to this usually, if we leave time wasters out of the equation. Option one is because you want to have this featured - not likely as the main reason want to see things featured is to gain some measure of egocentric joy, and if you were after that you would generally log in. (See WotM as this is a shining example of the fact that it is the attention seeking sycophants that are after glory who are nominated here. Of course, as you are obviously intelligent you would undoubtedly vote for the best candidate while you are there.)

Option two is to improve the article. Now it takes very little to see this is a short article, so I am assuming the intention was to get ideas as to how you can extend on this, as you've hit a block.

And here is where I come to point 3. The drying up of material as the concept does not lend itself to an article that is significantly long while still having a decent depth.

So my suggestion is this - change the concept. make this a Why?: Are you ugly? or a HowTo: Develop a realistic self-image or Ugly Insults through the ages. This moves it (potentially) from the encyclopeadia frame, extends you beyond a concept with limited scope, allows you to use first person throughout, or use it in quotations within the article.

Prose and formatting: 5 Not a spectacular layout, and one that on most days I would be more critical of. Today, however, you get away with it as this is an unfished article, and I will expect you to do the spit and polish as you go along. Different layouts add different things to each article. Work out you concept fully and then we can revisit it.

Spelling and grammar I haven't checked. Run it through a spelling/grammar check.

Writing style is first person blah blah...

Overall appearance I would say is decent for a first time work still in draft stage.

As to my scoring, if you feel that this is a completed article and should be nommed for FA, I'd actually be scoring about 3 - 4

Images: 5 I'm not happy with the final image but that may be due to it's memesque nature.

All the others are suitable. The first is not the best potato-chop, but a bit of work with the hair line would resolve most of my concerns.

Oh, Pug dogs have the ugliest faces, as with bulldogs and any dog with a mooshed in face. Just saying.

Miscellaneous: 5 As I said I came into this expecting to be dissappointed and was surprised - well, it's what I meant to say. Keep up the good work.
Final Score: 26.5 Some other statement about an unregistered user.
Reviewer: Pup t 06:52, 7/10/2009
Personal tools