Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnNews:Merrill Lynch and Bank of America merge, NYSE rises 500 points as result.

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

UnNews:Merrill Lynch and Bank of America merge, NYSE rises 500 points as result.[edit source]

I just created this parodying the subprime mortgage crisis and everyone's confidence over it, and It's my first real article, (I got another one I'm working on in my subspace, but that's not going anywhere anytime soon) so please don't tear me to shreds about it. However, your criticism is welcome and appreciated. It's short, I know, and if I get any good ideas I will make it longer. I also think it could use an image, but I'm not really sure what I should/could use, so if you know a good one, please tell me.

Thanks, Icons-flag-us.png JediBob Things I've said Things I've done 23:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Masaru.jpg

PEE REVIEW IN PROGRESS

Hyperbole is engaged in the dual processes
of giving you his opinion and pretending you care.
Humour: 5 Hey, Jedi! I'd like to apologize on behalf of PEEING that it took us six weeks to review your article. I see that you made a few contributions a week ago, so hopefully you're still working on articles here.

Okay, so on to this UnNews. This is, indeed, extremely short. I'm guessing that the joke is that one would expect that with a large merger like this, that was apparently met with enthusiasm, the market would go up - but it didn't. And that confuses the journalist.

I mean, that's a serviceable joke. It's not nearly enough for an article, obviously. Is it enough for an UnNews? Well.... maybe. You can get away with unusual brevity in an UnNews, but they really should still have more than 1.5 jokes.

Overall, and I don't mean to be too harsh here, but overall this article is probably going to met with a shrug. People will shrug, say "Well, okay," and move on. It's not a bad article, but it doesn't have any kind of a hook that makes it memorable to its audience.

My advice: let it go, move on, and write something a bit longer next time. Even in this short article, you've shown that you have a sense of voice - and that's good. Where there's voice, there's potential.

Concept: 7 There's nothing wrong with this concept; it just could use a little fleshing out.
Prose and formatting: 8 The prose is fine. There's a missing period after "Paulsen," but that's a minor typo. You effectively communicate a growing sense of confusion on the part of the journalist, and that's good, since that's more or less the punchline of the entire article.
Images: 3.5 There are none. Even though this article is short, an image always makes them look more "finished", and I've always found that captioning a picture gives you a lot of opportunities for comedy.
Miscellaneous: 5 Your misc score is five.
Final Score: 28.5 I think I've said it all at this point. Sorry again that it took so long to review this. One other note: since a lot of reviewers work from the oldest article on up, "bumping" your Pee Review will likely only make it take longer before anyone does it. Good luck! It's good to have you here.
Reviewer: Tinymasaru.gifpillow talk 16:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)