Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/obnosis

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit obnosis

Visiting Myself from This Future 15:37, December 26, 2009 (UTC) The preceding unsigned comment was added by LisaKachold (talk • contribs)

I'm currently trying to review this. ~Scriptsiggy.JPGTelephonesig Star Starsig Kidneysig 15:08, Jan 3, 2010
Humour: 5 Well, I like to pick older requests to review, and I'm currently avoiding the cricket ones and that other one that doesn't make sense. So, anyway, here I am, but that doesn't mean your article was easy to understand either. I had to spend 40 minutes reading through the external links you put in the article to get an idea of what you were talking about, which is not good. You know, your article is not very reader-friendly, and a bit too insidey. Making the article incomprehensible might be a viable concept, but I recommend against it, see the box below.

I don't know how many people have told you to read UN:HTBFANJS, but here I am to tell you to read it again. I also recommend reading featured articles to get an idea of how things are done around here, but I don't have any specific ones in mind at the moment.

As I read the article, I also got a sense of "information overload". To explain:

In 1957, 1.Scientologist cult founder L. Ron Hubbard defined the term as "observation of the obvious." Hubbard regularly stated that 2.non-Scientologists were inherently emotionally, mentally and spiritually ill, requiring structured training just to see how useless 3.paying a 4.bad science fiction writer to impart anything more than Technophilia, might be ill advised. If this sounds a lot like 5.politics, you may have just saved yourself the huge OT course fee!
  • The things that I numbered and bolded are things that you could possibly expand upon, made into another joke, or spend another paragraph explaining or parodying. A good joke needs to be built up, but all you did was squash up the 5 different elements into 3 sentences. Other parts also have the same problem, and you should probably go and identify which parts you need to expand.

My prescription for inside references are: reduce, explain, or (a new one) exploit well-known stereotypes. A stereotype is a set of characteristics that come together. They can help people make sense of an article about an obscure subject, and most importantly, stereotypes are funny. You could incorporate stereotypes of scientologists and 4channers into the article, for instance.

Here is also an example of how to explain something (sorry if it sucks, just trying to illustrate a point):

  • Original sentence: Gnosis may also be achieved after spending substantial time in jail, as some 4Chanology members discovered after hacking Scientology web sites.
  • How I would have wrote it: In 2009, a group of 4Chanology members hacked into Scientology websites. (insert some form of elaboration) By now they would have achieved Gnosis, something which can also be obtained after spending time in jail.

So what I've done is putting the explanation before the joke, and not mention it like an afterthought. I think this really helps as it sets the context first, and it also plays the "straight man". I cannot stress enough the importance of straight-man-playing. Also notice that the joke goes at the end of the sentence and not the middle. This also helps, because the joke is like a "punchline", and usually needs to be at the end to be fully appreciated.

  • You should probably reword my rewording, as I don't think it fits the article as it is.

It's very hard to write humourously on a subject that you have a very strong view of. You might not see a neutral viewpoint on many Uncyclopedia articles that are considered good, but the writers don't feel strongly enough to stage a protest or launch an edit war. Many articles also simply make fun of the viewpoints that they employ, such as employing the voice of a redneck (and making fun of them) in this article: I will never forget. This is another concept that you can use. While writing, I recommend detaching yourself ever so slightly from the subject matter, just enough to see your own foibles, but not enough to prevent it from being funny. Also, remember this article: Nobody cares.

Concept: 5 In most cases, a good concept is needed to carry the jokes. It really helps if you have a clear idea of what you aim for.
  • As mentioned in the boxes above, some possible concepts are - stereotypes, and writing in a "voice".
  • Making the article confusing - it might be ironic that an article on "learning from the obvious" is made confusing and incomprehensible, but that is just one joke, and a main joke, without little side jokes to sustain it, runs out of steam pretty quickly. Plus, if readers don't understand what you talked about, they are probably not going to laugh. It's just very hard to pull off. I always think that a good Uncyc article should not only make fun of a subject matter, but tell other people about it as well.
  • You wrote in an encyclopedic tone, which is probably appropriate for your subject matter. But you need more jokes than what you have now, which are basically little snide commentaries around the place.
Prose and formatting: 7 Your prose is good, with minimal spelling and grammar mistakes, but I wasn't really looking carefully. I have one complaint though. It is that you seem to like to use long sentences, with a lot of technical jargon thrown in, and they end up sounding like drivel (too harsh?). Here's what I mean:
  • Qoute: The word Obnosis has been sporked in an attempt to be l33t in popular use for technical music and gaming characters; an indication of social evolution to individually driven drivel, mis-intelligence, and opinion, that expose a progressive and perverse cultural shift
  • How I would rewrite it (again, sorry if it sucks, just illustrating a point): Recently, the word "obnosis" has been used in areas such as technical music and gaming, in an attempt by those involved to sound l33t. This is an indication of the word's social evolution, from ?? to individually driven drivel, mis-intelligence, and opinion (should probably be shortened). It exposes a progressive and perverse cultural shift (this also).

Yes, like I said before, lighten up on the social commentary. I have also placed the jokes at the end of the sentence, and broken it up so that it's easier to read. Other sentences can also use some rewording like this.

Images: 4 Motivational posters? Really? At least have the decency to crop out the edges and type in the caption. That being said, you should probably find new images, preferably those that illustrate the article. They don't have to be funny by nature, and a funny caption often works wonders. For instance, the one with the aliens you can keep, and you could probably caption it with something like "Scientology lawyers preparing to sue 4Chan hackers."
Miscellaneous: 5.3 I hope you have more success as you continue to improve the article, but please remember that Uncyclopedia is not a place to advocate some kind of agenda. As usual, you are free to disagree with me or request a second opinion. I'm sorry if my review is too harsh (I really hope it isn't).
Final Score: 26.3 If you need further help/clarification/advice/stuff, I am available on my talk page, but I'm still a noob trying to learn the ropes.
Reviewer: ~Scriptsiggy.JPGTelephonesig Star Starsig Kidneysig 17:24, Jan 3, 2010
Personal tools
projects