Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Allahakbarries

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Allahakbarries

New article, need some feedback. IronLung 21:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

PEE REVIEW IN PROGRESS Hyperbole is engaged in the dual processes of giving you his opinion and pretending you care.

I'll get this one. Soon.pillow talk 18:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	7.5	Hey IL! Let's see what we've got here. Lede: 8. Okay, here's the thing about your lede. It tells the entire joke of the article. And I laughed out loud at it. Very funny. So why only an 8? Because I spent like 10 minutes trying to figure out why on earth the team's founder was J.M. Barrie. Does the article have anything to do with Peter Pan? No. Was Barrie a Muslim? No. Is Barrie's Cricket Club really a Scottish phrase? Not that I can see. So it's like you're trying to set up a triple pun - "Allah akbar" + "J.M. Barries" + "Barrie's Cricket Club" = Allahakbarries - but that's just... too complicated. It makes me think hard. I can't laugh when I'm thinking too hard. Personally, I think J.M. Barrie needs to be exorcised from this article. Origins: 5. This is a long, long setup to a joke that's already given us the punchline. There are a few droll jokes in the writing here. The bit about cricketers being too polite to complain about being murdered is funny. The halal carrier pigeon is worth a smile. But mostly, this is setup. Delaying a punchline is often unwise. Delaying a repetition of a punchline we've already heard is suicide. 1890 season: 7. Seven means "solid." Solid as in "not hilarious, but it works." And this is solid. The writing is good. But there's no real "zing" in any of the lines that takes me from "amused" into "grinning." You know what I mean? Most of the problem is that we've already told the two main jokes in this article: 1) The Allahakbarries are killing cricketers; and 2) Cricketers are too polite complain. The article is repeating itself. The prose is solid, but there's nothing to be surprised by, so I can't really laugh. Team traditions: 8. It's kind of a collection of Muslim stereotypes, but it's still funny. The second paragraph is a joke I can't get because I don't know much about cricket, but I'm going to assume it's good. The bit about syphilis, I really don't get. I'm not clear on why the allahakbarries are giving each other syphilis. Future seasons: 5. This seems a little weak. I'm not sure why you concluded by giving the mass murderer a crisis of conscience. It's not hilarious. I think there's a joke in here about Northumberland that I'm not familiar enough with Northumberland to understand.
Concept:	7	The basic concept here is "A fundamentalist muslim cricket team that murders Cricketers who are too polite to object." That's a very strong concept. Unfortunately, some other stuff dilutes it - mostly, the famous authors and the crisis of conscience. Those should go. What I'm worried about here, though, is that too much of the joke is in the concept itself - and therefore in the lede. It starts very, very strong, but limps over the finish line.
Prose and formatting:	10	Your prose is awesome. Your formatting is good.
Images:	7	The images don't really add a lot of humor to the article, but they help with the formatting. They're fine.
Miscellaneous:	6	Because I want your final score to be 37.5. Better than "solid" (35); not as good as "probable feature" (40). At least, not yet.
Final Score:	37.5	I think I've said my whole piece here. You've got a funny concept and a well-written article, but somehow it doesn't quite come together. What this needs is some kind of plot twist. I'm looking at an article that makes me laugh out loud in the first three sentences and then doesn't deliver on its promise to keep me laughing. But clean up the concept a bit and pepper the article with two or three really funny, surprising, out-of-nowhere lines, and you've got yourself a feature. Good luck!
Reviewer:	pillow talk 00:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to add that I was on the verge of peeing this when Hyperbole stepped into the breach, and I am so glad you created this article, as it led me to the real story, which actually has a lot of scope in itself. When I initially read what you'd done, I had similar thoughts to Hyperbole, but then I delved into the history and found it almost as bizarre as your own article, and understand what you've done here - but without that relatively obscure knowledge, I can see how the joke might fall flat. My only regret is the fact that a book appears to be in preparation detailing the history - it's just the sort of thing I'd love to turn my hand to. Work on this ... your take has scope. --Asahatter (annoy) 00:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)