Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/A. A. Milne
A. A. Milne[edit source]
Bit long I know but... Sog1970 16:01, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
| Humour: | 7.5 | Ok Sog, this is another great piece and will likely be another feature for you very soon. In fact it could probably make it through VFH as it is. However there are one or two things I definitely think you could revise to get it into much better shape, so I'll just take you through my ideas.
I'm probably going to talk about humour and concept together here because there isn't much to say. Basically your underlying concept is very strong and imaginitive but the problem lies in how long it takes you to get to it. The way I see it, this article is about the conflation of AA Milne with Alcholics Anonymous, correct? So this is the main thing you should be focussing on. Not only is the article a little too long by your own admission, but these parts are the strongest of the entire article. There is a lot of what seems like padding in the first two sections, before you get to the main idea of the support group. The preamble to this is too long, in my opinion, and the article would benefit greatly from some trimming of this stuff. Although the jokes in these parts (i.e. stuff about Victorian England, Darkies, Milne's school and army days) are funny, I can't help but feel they're a little off topic. It's also a lot less unique than the bits about the support group made up of Winnie the Pooh characters, and actually verges on being cliched at times (particularly the jokes about the French and the Working Classes). And then some of it is actually quite random, like the British Space Expedition reference. Be savage with your trimming, some brevity will make your article feel a lot more focussed. The stuff about Doctor Hooke could probably go too, again it was funny but this isn't really the right place for it. And while I liked the 12 steps, they also seemed inconsistent with the article as a whole. You're trying to cram too many ideas in with this whole preamble, and the article kind of feels like two wholly separate articles mashed together. If I were to choose one to salvage, it would be the second half, the brilliantly imaginitive idea that Milne based his books on a bunch of drunkards. Another problem along these lines is that it takes you ages to establish your underlying concept. It wasn't until about three sections in that I realised what you were doing. I was thinking; "wow, I didn't know AA Milne was such a hellraiser!" until suddenly about a third of the way through it all fell into place. Get to your point as quickly as you can (you can probably recycle a lot of the jokes in the first few sections later, just so long as you can establish yourself sooner). This is pretty much your only real flaw as far as I'm concerned, and I really would like you to get it sorted as I want to see this piece attain the greatness I know it can reach (seriously, with a bit of trimming here and there this could well be your best article yet). |
| Concept: | 9 | I don't think I really have anything else to say here. If I'm scoring your concept though, I'm going to go with 9. If it wasn't for all the parts where you seem distracted, it'd be a definite 10. |
| Prose and formatting: | 8 | Generally your prose are excellent, and your spelling and grammar the same. There were one or two errors but I corrected them myself.
There are just a couple of occasions were the way you write is either a bit cursory or muddled and it was difficult to follow what you meant. For instance, when you mention "Sélincourt’s return to Paris in search of a less effete way of life" I got a bit confused. Are you saying France is less effete than Britain? That doesn't sound right, perhaps I'm wrong of course. Or is the joke that you're saying the opposite of what's true maybe? Whatever the case, the explanation didn't exactly leap out at me and I was left feeling like there was something more here that you hadn't explained. This may be another joke you could consider trimming in the name of brevity. Your call, obviously. It also gets a bit confusing when you say Roo represents Christopher Robin's innocence. I think the idea in itself is confusing, but the way you worded it was too; you just kind of rush through it, really. I think this part would work better if you just stuck with the idea of Roo idolising Tigger himself, then maybe go on to mention the poignant parallel with Milne and his own child, mainly because I really like the line about him not being a good father figure. Another measure you could consider taking is making the names more similar, or more relevant, if you know what I mean. Lyons works well because of it's sort of interchangeable with tiger, for instance. For a time, I didn't realise Bronco McStabber was supposed to be Pooh Bear, and there was some confusion with some of the others too, I recall. This isn't a major issue, but might help readers who aren't immediately familiar with the characters (although who isn't familiar with Winnie the Pooh?) Finally, just one a note of formatting: is there a reason you stop using subheaders half way through and cram the last few characters into one subheader? It just seemed strange to me. Was it simply because they're the less important characters or was it something to do with the arrangement of the article? I think it would be better to break all the characters up so they have their own space, just because the text goes on for too long without a break otherwise. If this messes up your formatting don't worry too much, again it isn't a major problem. |
| Images: | 7 | My feelings about the images really echo my comments in humour. The second half of the article about the Hundred Acre Wood characters works really well, I love the illustrations, but the first half is mostly filled with silly images that aren't really relevant to the piece (particularly the anti-masturbation device). Your captions are also a lot weaker up top. Instead of making obvious jokes about him being a paedophile, try to find some more pictures that capture the interesting blend you've created here, and captions to match. |
| Miscellaneous: | 8 | My gut feeling. |
| Final Score: | 39.5 | So just to repeat, an excellent piece that is hindered only by the fact that it takes too long to get to the meat of the article. My main advice would be trim it, particularly the first half - just anything you're not 100% on. I realise this might be tough, especially since there's some funny stuff in there. I definitely think however that the article will benefit overall from some more focus. I can't wait to see it finished, by the way.
Hope the review is ok, if you want me to elaborate or take a look at anything more specific, please let me know and I'll see what I can do. I'll see you at VFH when you're done with it. |
| Reviewer: | --Black Flamingo 21:54, October 15, 2010 (UTC) | |