Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:bhind45/Malcolm in the Middle

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

User:bhind45/Malcolm in the Middle

Bhind45 10:19, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

I got this! Expect a review by tomorrow.--Respond 10:25, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware that there is a 24 hour limit on booking reviews that you have now missed? In future if you're going to take longer, or cannot make the commitment, please leave a note here so we know. Thanks. --Black Flamingo 18:32, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

I think you've had long enough, Jokerman. This review is now up for grabs. --Black Flamingo 16:08, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

*sneaks in and grabs it* 1234 ~ 17:35, 15 April 2011

Whoops, I forgot! Good catch, Lyrithya.--Respond 00:58, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Except for the part where I dropped it on my foot. But then I found it. Later. I did. *shifty eyes* I'm doing it. I am! 1234 ~ 02:03, 17 April 2011

Humour:	5	Mmkay, I'll be honest; it's still pretty bad, though now most of the badness seems confined to the writing itself - grammar, syntax, organisation, etc, unfortunately to the point where I can't even tell what you're trying to say in places. This is, however, a marked improvement from, not that the scores on this review necessarily mean much compared to the last, since we probably have rather different scales. Anyhow, point is, you're making progress, at least. I'll just jump straight into the bits. Introduction Mmm, quotes... quotes are bad, for all manner of reasons. Something about not looking good and being a cheap gag and whatnot, though they can make a good introductory thing, set the tone for a piece... but these don't. They aren't even that funny in general, really. First one doesn't even make sense - middle of what? Isn't he the middle child? Might make sense to mention that somwhere, but this really isn't the place, and doesn't actually do so. Second... well, it actually is kind of funny - it's a twist on the expected, and twists are good. Unfortunately, it doesn't really have much to do to the article; it's just random, at least where it is. If you could work it into the body of the thing, though, it might work - put it into the criticism or some such, add a bit about other folks' reactions to the thing, with mention of interviews or something. Okay, if it's well-known, why does it have a viewership of 12? That doesn't even make sense. General thing - if it's not believable, it's much less likely to be funny. This, it just jars. You do seem to be pointing out some good irony, though, so that's something... just make it make more sense, will you? And use believable numbers. As for the infobox, I'm not entirely sure why you have that, or such a big one, at least, since you're basically just using it to be vague, insult the characters, and repeat some of the contents of the article. Unless you want to say something new, something more clever than mere insults (not only is this really isn't the place for that, but just insulting folks directly really isn't funny in the first place - examples of why they are not good, or subtle hints, those can work quite well, but saying 'That guy's an idiot' just falls flat), something that would actually use the fact that it's an infobox to its advantage (twist on how Wikipedia does them, perhaps?), I'd suggest getting rid of the thing entirely. Characters This suddenly gets very un-encyclopaedic, and not in a good way. Directly addressing the reader about why they should care tends to be more irritating than funny, unfortunately. And although the repetition of 'crappy' could be good, it's really not enough. What about them? Why are they crappy? Can you not introduce more about them, where they came from, how they got in the show, the history, the impacts, the actors, in general, before going into a list? Also, why would the reader be reminding itself of that, if the reader doesn't know it yet? That doesn't even make sense. As for the list, er... mon, use examples. Describe the characters, don't just apply adjectives, and should everything really be so sexual? That's not actually that funny, contrary to popular belief. Perhaps some redeeming qualities might help as well; I don't know, though. I've never watched it. The Neil Patrick Harris bit was good, though. Opening Sequence So it was... plagiarised. That's not terrible original. This would be a lot better if it was less repetitive, however. Saying that a girl that edited it, however, is a little odd - it's like you're trying to explain why it was so bad, but the entire presentation makes it seem like you would be explaining why it was good, and that would be the joke, that it was just because some girl did it. Except it's not. You know? Typical Episode Outline This would be a lot better if you actually wrote it out in text, used generic things, and told the story... in prose. Not a list. Perhaps use a bunch of things from different episodes and mash them all together (I did something similar in Protagonist; dunno how well it worked, but it's an idea)... and again, sexuality really isn't that funny. Criticism Okay, what? Firstly, you're just insulting it with various adjectives again, which isn't funny, and also, this doesn't even make any sense. After it became bad, it become bad? Now, I know this is prose stuff, but if I don't even know what you're saying, that's a problem in general. This section seems largely random, though, people say this, people say that, list of thingies... actually, the list is okay. Perhaps a bit long. But you may want to look at how Wikipedia usually formats such sections, and what they usually say... Also, you hate her? That's lovely, but that also doesn't really belong in the article. Controversy Controversy struck it, did it? That doesn't really make sense, either. Why not just say that happened, and was controversial due to... etc. And, er... more namedropping? Inserting random names into things generally doesn't help matters. What has George W. Bush got to do with this, really? Anything? Or could it just as well be some other political figure? M for Masturbation This seems rather untrue, as you do mention jerking off earlier in the article. It also seems rather random. You know, masturbation isn't inherently funny, either... Cancellation Uh... what?
Concept:	4	Well, making a seemingly normal encyclopedia article is a decent way about this, but the directions you take it are a little iffy, especially in places. For specifics, see the humour section.
Prose and formatting:	2	Basically, you have a whole lot of little things seriously hurting the readability of the piece... I'll just try to list them in the order I find them upon another read-through. Mind, this doesn't mean I'll have caught everything. Organisation and formatting You really shouldn't be using =h1=s in the body of your article. I mean, single = section headers - the title of the page is a =h1=; the sections are subsections of that, and should use lower level headings - ==h2s== or ===h3s===, perhaps. The headings get smaller the more =s are used. Introduce your notion in the introduction, and have that lead into the article as a whole. Every idea should flow from the last, or be part of some greater dealy, so organise them accordingly. In this case, perhaps an overview of sorts before jumping into the characters would work better, as we still don't even know anything about what it really is, or is about, when that section starts, and it's just a list. And lists are bad. They break flow and are choppy and look bad and tend not to be very funny, something about how short the entries tend to be, and they don't show relationships well and they invite idiots to tack on stupid new entries, and... well, they're generally not good. Consider making smaller things pieces of larger things as paragraphs and/or subsections of other sections - this should help the organisation a mite. When it ends, it should be more... natural. I dunno, just... tie up the pieces, or some such. Conclude it in a way that fits the rest of the thing; that doesn't, so much. Be consistent. Always, be consistent. If you say something, don't contradict it somewhere else. If you use a certain tone, stick to it. If you're being an encyclopedia thing presenting the irony of the matter, don't break that by adding random crudeness or talking directly to the reader or say you hate things. Keep yourself out of it. Double line breaks tend to look bad. Grammar It's called Malcolm in the Middle Because Malcolm is in the middle. - Don't capitalise random words in the middle of sentences. In this case, the because should be lowercase. Also, bolding isn't really the best way to show it's the name of the show, especially since the quote is in italics. 'Malcolm in the Middle' would make more sense since it's literally about what it's called. Second quote - missing a period. a low-level class family - You mean a 'lower-class family'? Despite the fact that the only people who watch Fox are members of the so-called, elite, middle-class family. - That's not even a sentence, and doesn't fit with the stuff around it. Finish the thought and make it fit, or at very least make it make sense. Do you mean 'the so-called elite', something about the middle class? Because you oughtn't use commas after adjectives, just in general. Every series has some crappy characters but in this series every character is crappy so here's a list of them crappy characters to remind yourself why you should give a fuck about what these people are doing: - that is what we like to call a run-on sentence. Splitting it up would be optimal, but at very least you need commas. Separate idividual clauses with them. They're usually the things between which one would stop for breath when reading aloud. Usually. Also, 'them crappy characters' should be 'the crappy characters'. Malcolm is well known for having a big head for a small body - big head for his small body, perhaps? Girlfriend is one word these days. No need to link the characters' names. There isn't much reason for them to each have their own articles, anyhow. Just take a look at he's face. - The singular male possessive term is 'his'. Please don't swap out letters for numbers; it looks rather silly. ...even when its obviously dumb. Use it's when it means it is. Its is the possessive term. ... that childish that he becomes very shocked when he see's Magda Szubanski boobs but who woulded be shocked to see her boobs. - There are several things wrong with this. Try reading it aloud or something and you should be able to find at least some of them. Also, 'woulded' isn't a word. ...having other people's work in it, the reason for this was comfirmed... - use a semicolon if it it is two sentences put together like this. Okay, just what do you mean about Lois 'holding her boobs up'? What does that mean? People say that Malcolm in the Middle is the best thing since a slice of bread. While other people say Malcolm in the Middle is not even better than a slice of bread. - put those two together; they ain't full sentences by themselves, not really. Turn that period into a comma. In 2000 controversy striked Malcolm in the Middle... - should be 'struck'.
Images:	5	Well, the images you have are okay, and for the amount of text you have, a reasonable number. They also fit the text, which is good. You may want to make them bigger, though. Can't tell what's going on in them, you know? Can't actually see how bad the yard is... The positioning should improve if you remove the giant infobox, though, as currently the two characters are down by the episode outline on my screen...
Miscellaneous:	4	Gut feeling or some such. Whatever the kids are putting here these days.
Final Score:	20	So... yeah, you're making progress, but it still needs a fair bit. Make it more readable and work on what you're saying, and perhaps get a proofreader, and that will help immensely... not that you shouldn't work on the other stuff, of course. Anyhow, sorry this took so long, hopefully it will help, good luck, and if you have any questions or whatnot, don't hesitate to drop by and ask or whatnot. I promise I won't intentionally ignore you. Also, if anything happens to be a repeat of what Oliphaunte said, it might be a good sign you may want to address that after all, or do more about whatever it is than you have so far.
Reviewer:	1234 ~ 05:44, 17 April 2011

5	Humour The implementation, how funny the article comes out...
	Mmkay, I'll be honest; it's still pretty bad, though now most of the badness seems confined to the writing itself - grammar, syntax, organisation, etc, unfortunately to the point where I can't even tell what you're trying to say in places. This is, however, a marked improvement from, not that the scores on this review necessarily mean much compared to the last, since we probably have rather different scales. Anyhow, point is, you're making progress, at least. I'll just jump straight into the bits. Introduction Mmm, quotes... quotes are bad, for all manner of reasons. Something about not looking good and being a cheap gag and whatnot, though they can make a good introductory thing, set the tone for a piece... but these don't. They aren't even that funny in general, really. First one doesn't even make sense - middle of what? Isn't he the middle child? Might make sense to mention that somwhere, but this really isn't the place, and doesn't actually do so. Second... well, it actually is kind of funny - it's a twist on the expected, and twists are good. Unfortunately, it doesn't really have much to do to the article; it's just random, at least where it is. If you could work it into the body of the thing, though, it might work - put it into the criticism or some such, add a bit about other folks' reactions to the thing, with mention of interviews or something. Okay, if it's well-known, why does it have a viewership of 12? That doesn't even make sense. General thing - if it's not believable, it's much less likely to be funny. This, it just jars. You do seem to be pointing out some good irony, though, so that's something... just make it make more sense, will you? And use believable numbers. As for the infobox, I'm not entirely sure why you have that, or such a big one, at least, since you're basically just using it to be vague, insult the characters, and repeat some of the contents of the article. Unless you want to say something new, something more clever than mere insults (not only is this really isn't the place for that, but just insulting folks directly really isn't funny in the first place - examples of why they are not good, or subtle hints, those can work quite well, but saying 'That guy's an idiot' just falls flat), something that would actually use the fact that it's an infobox to its advantage (twist on how Wikipedia does them, perhaps?), I'd suggest getting rid of the thing entirely. Characters This suddenly gets very un-encyclopaedic, and not in a good way. Directly addressing the reader about why they should care tends to be more irritating than funny, unfortunately. And although the repetition of 'crappy' could be good, it's really not enough. What about them? Why are they crappy? Can you not introduce more about them, where they came from, how they got in the show, the history, the impacts, the actors, in general, before going into a list? Also, why would the reader be reminding itself of that, if the reader doesn't know it yet? That doesn't even make sense. As for the list, er... mon, use examples. Describe the characters, don't just apply adjectives, and should everything really be so sexual? That's not actually that funny, contrary to popular belief. Perhaps some redeeming qualities might help as well; I don't know, though. I've never watched it. The Neil Patrick Harris bit was good, though. Opening Sequence So it was... plagiarised. That's not terrible original. This would be a lot better if it was less repetitive, however. Saying that a girl that edited it, however, is a little odd - it's like you're trying to explain why it was so bad, but the entire presentation makes it seem like you would be explaining why it was good, and that would be the joke, that it was just because some girl did it. Except it's not. You know? Typical Episode Outline This would be a lot better if you actually wrote it out in text, used generic things, and told the story... in prose. Not a list. Perhaps use a bunch of things from different episodes and mash them all together (I did something similar in Protagonist; dunno how well it worked, but it's an idea)... and again, sexuality really isn't that funny. Criticism Okay, what? Firstly, you're just insulting it with various adjectives again, which isn't funny, and also, this doesn't even make any sense. After it became bad, it become bad? Now, I know this is prose stuff, but if I don't even know what you're saying, that's a problem in general. This section seems largely random, though, people say this, people say that, list of thingies... actually, the list is okay. Perhaps a bit long. But you may want to look at how Wikipedia usually formats such sections, and what they usually say... Also, you hate her? That's lovely, but that also doesn't really belong in the article. Controversy Controversy struck it, did it? That doesn't really make sense, either. Why not just say that happened, and was controversial due to... etc. And, er... more namedropping? Inserting random names into things generally doesn't help matters. What has George W. Bush got to do with this, really? Anything? Or could it just as well be some other political figure? M for Masturbation This seems rather untrue, as you do mention jerking off earlier in the article. It also seems rather random. You know, masturbation isn't inherently funny, either... Cancellation Uh... what?
4	Concept The idea, the angle, the grand funny of the article...
	Well, making a seemingly normal encyclopedia article is a decent way about this, but the directions you take it are a little iffy, especially in places. For specifics, see the humour section.
2	Prose and formatting Appearance, flow, overall presentation...
	Basically, you have a whole lot of little things seriously hurting the readability of the piece... I'll just try to list them in the order I find them upon another read-through. Mind, this doesn't mean I'll have caught everything. Organisation and formatting You really shouldn't be using =h1=s in the body of your article. I mean, single = section headers - the title of the page is a =h1=; the sections are subsections of that, and should use lower level headings - ==h2s== or ===h3s===, perhaps. The headings get smaller the more =s are used. Introduce your notion in the introduction, and have that lead into the article as a whole. Every idea should flow from the last, or be part of some greater dealy, so organise them accordingly. In this case, perhaps an overview of sorts before jumping into the characters would work better, as we still don't even know anything about what it really is, or is about, when that section starts, and it's just a list. And lists are bad. They break flow and are choppy and look bad and tend not to be very funny, something about how short the entries tend to be, and they don't show relationships well and they invite idiots to tack on stupid new entries, and... well, they're generally not good. Consider making smaller things pieces of larger things as paragraphs and/or subsections of other sections - this should help the organisation a mite. When it ends, it should be more... natural. I dunno, just... tie up the pieces, or some such. Conclude it in a way that fits the rest of the thing; that doesn't, so much. Be consistent. Always, be consistent. If you say something, don't contradict it somewhere else. If you use a certain tone, stick to it. If you're being an encyclopedia thing presenting the irony of the matter, don't break that by adding random crudeness or talking directly to the reader or say you hate things. Keep yourself out of it. Double line breaks tend to look bad. Grammar It's called Malcolm in the Middle Because Malcolm is in the middle. - Don't capitalise random words in the middle of sentences. In this case, the because should be lowercase. Also, bolding isn't really the best way to show it's the name of the show, especially since the quote is in italics. 'Malcolm in the Middle' would make more sense since it's literally about what it's called. Second quote - missing a period. a low-level class family - You mean a 'lower-class family'? Despite the fact that the only people who watch Fox are members of the so-called, elite, middle-class family. - That's not even a sentence, and doesn't fit with the stuff around it. Finish the thought and make it fit, or at very least make it make sense. Do you mean 'the so-called elite', something about the middle class? Because you oughtn't use commas after adjectives, just in general. Every series has some crappy characters but in this series every character is crappy so here's a list of them crappy characters to remind yourself why you should give a fuck about what these people are doing: - that is what we like to call a run-on sentence. Splitting it up would be optimal, but at very least you need commas. Separate idividual clauses with them. They're usually the things between which one would stop for breath when reading aloud. Usually. Also, 'them crappy characters' should be 'the crappy characters'. Malcolm is well known for having a big head for a small body - big head for his small body, perhaps? Girlfriend is one word these days. No need to link the characters' names. There isn't much reason for them to each have their own articles, anyhow. Just take a look at he's face. - The singular male possessive term is 'his'. Please don't swap out letters for numbers; it looks rather silly. ...even when its obviously dumb. Use it's when it means it is. Its is the possessive term. ... that childish that he becomes very shocked when he see's Magda Szubanski boobs but who woulded be shocked to see her boobs. - There are several things wrong with this. Try reading it aloud or something and you should be able to find at least some of them. Also, 'woulded' isn't a word. ...having other people's work in it, the reason for this was comfirmed... - use a semicolon if it it is two sentences put together like this. Okay, just what do you mean about Lois 'holding her boobs up'? What does that mean? People say that Malcolm in the Middle is the best thing since a slice of bread. While other people say Malcolm in the Middle is not even better than a slice of bread. - put those two together; they ain't full sentences by themselves, not really. Turn that period into a comma. In 2000 controversy striked Malcolm in the Middle... - should be 'struck'.
5	Images The graphics themselves, as well as their humour and relevance...
	Well, the images you have are okay, and for the amount of text you have, a reasonable number. They also fit the text, which is good. You may want to make them bigger, though. Can't tell what's going on in them, you know? Can't actually see how bad the yard is... The positioning should improve if you remove the giant infobox, though, as currently the two characters are down by the episode outline on my screen...
4	Miscellaneous Anything else... or not...
	Gut feeling or some such. Whatever the kids are putting here these days.
20	Final score 1234 ~ 05:44, 17 April 2011
	So... yeah, you're making progress, but it still needs a fair bit. Make it more readable and work on what you're saying, and perhaps get a proofreader, and that will help immensely... not that you shouldn't work on the other stuff, of course. Anyhow, sorry this took so long, hopefully it will help, good luck, and if you have any questions or whatnot, don't hesitate to drop by and ask or whatnot. I promise I won't intentionally ignore you. Also, if anything happens to be a repeat of what Oliphaunte said, it might be a good sign you may want to address that after all, or do more about whatever it is than you have so far.