Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Andy Richter
Preferably by someone who knows Andy, by which I mean read his Wikipedia page. Padddy5 20:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Andy Richter[edit source]
Padddy5 20:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm in here Pup
User:PuppyOnTheRadio/Template:Reload
| Humour: | 6 | although I will admit to being generous on this, but based upon a purely technical aspect. HTBFANJS is my guide to this aspect of the review, and you have managed to avoid most of the cardinal sins in here.
Having said that I'm being generous for what you didn't do, but I'm not giving anything more because of what you didn't do. Your article almost cries for the need for Escalation to be the main cause for the humour, and although it's hard to tell your motivation behind how you've done what you've done, it seems that you started off with this in mind but couldn't resist the lure of the one-liners. Please, resist them. Case in point, the first paragraph as it stands - Paul Andrew "Andy" Richter (born October 28, 1966), is an American comedian, actor and high class prostitute. He is best known for his sidekick role on Late Night with Conan O'Brien between 1993 and 2000. Richter has returned to O'Brien's side as the announcer on The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien, which began airing on June 1, 2009. In his earlier years, Andy insisted that his role was not as a sidekick, but he was simply not allowed as much time onscreen as Conan due to the risk of the audience dying from laughter. Change a couple of things - Paul Andrew "Andy" Richter (born October 28, 1966), is an American comedian, and actor. He is best known for his sidekick role on Late Night with Conan O'Brien between 1993 and 2000. Richter has returned as a sidekick to O'Brien as the announcer on The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien, which began airing on June 1, 2009. In his earlier years, Andy insisted that his role was not as a sidekick, but he was simply not allowed as much time onscreen as Conan due to the risk of the audience dying from laughter. 2 changes - Leave the prostitute joke tom come in later in the article. Means that this appears to be more a "straight" article, and saves the the punch until the punchline. Secondly repetition is a fantastic vehicle. I once saw Steve Vizard live - the Australian saccharine to the O'Brien sugar - and a joke he attempted at the start of the show died flat. He repeated the joke over and over again during the show, and at the end of the show I was laughing not because the joke had become funny, but the reference to the joke had become funny. Also don't forget how powerful the truth is as a vehicle. He played "Mike Brady", the second most popular Brady, in the stage show, the second preferred medium in which to watch this, but only as a second choice. The guy is a sidekick from birth. The doctor wasn't even there to deliver him as there was a more interesting birth in the next room! | |||
| Concept: | 7 | I love the concept, and really would love to see this improved. What lets it down is the name-value of the man, which as I did have to look him up on Wiki in order to remember him dropped it a point - unfortunately unless you start acting as a press agent for him, not much of a chance of changing it. But the eternal sidekick part I love. I would also suggest bringing the {{wikipedia}} up to the top of the article just before the first heading, as this will position it below the intro photograph.
If you've ever seen the movie "Mallrats" you'll know that there is a few references to Brodie being TS's sidekick, and Brodie's reaction to this is what you want to have in this article as Andy's voice. If you haven't seen the movie, then buy it. | |||
| Prose and formatting: | 4 | Spelling is good, grammar is passable, layout and overall appearance let you down in a major way. Look at it all on one page from across the room can you see big block of text, contents box, big block of text new header, a few smaller blocks of text header, and big block of text? If not you may be short-sighted.
Break up your text. A paragraph is a single thought, potentially an extended thought, but when shifting from one train of though to the next you should also switch paragraphs. Remember your audience have a potential Flesch-Kincaid reading level of -0.75 - they may have just been conceived. Long blocks of text are too hard for them to read. Just as an example I let this paragraph just go on and on and on and on and on and on and on. I mean I can switch concepts in here as well. Did I mention that I have to put my towels on the clothes line today? They carry towels with them in Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. Roger Waters did an album about the Pros and Cons of hitch hiking that suggested most hitch hikers were only a short step away from prostitutes. I've never been with a prostitute, but I used to go to a brothel a fair bit as a young adult as they had cheap pool tables and cheap booze, and I was poor. Plus there were half naked girls wandering around, which usually doesn't happen at most bars I go to. Can you see how hard it is to wade through all this crap? Oh, paragraph 3 under career - pull this out as a block quote so that...
as well as giving a more "encyclopaedia" look. | |||
| Images: | 4.5 | Minimum of 1 image per 1 page down of the article. We like to look at the pretty pictures. They do relate to the article, but they're not funny in and of themselves. Although having said that I did give an extra 0.5 for the caption on the second image - that was funny, but not hysterical. 1, maybe 2 more images, and really funny images, would make this perfect.
An image search on Google gave me this, this, and this all on the first page. I'm sure a more thorough search can find more entertaining images. | |||
| Miscellaneous: | 5.4 | Haven't I said enough yet? Oh, alright then. There's a lot of promise in this. It needs a little more work but it's close to what you're after. For you images I'm sure you know what to do - think visually about it, and always check out UN:BEST for ideas on what works visually. For the Spelling and Grammor, once you have this where you want it to be, if these are not your strength then chuck {{Proofread}} on the page and be lazy about this aspect.
Just be warned, the proof-readers may be English, and therefore your spelling may be a little less | |||
| Final Score: | 26.9 | In Summary:
| |||
| Reviewer: | Pup | ||||
Damn, that's exhausting. Think how much longer that would be if I bothered to read the article. Pup