Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Blatant Crap

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Blatant Crap

Kglee 02:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	4	Well it delivers what it promises, a parody on really really bad articles. Nothing fantastic but it did get a smile. Try as I might after the initial smile the article offered little more, no witty remarks, no self referential humor, nothing. It could however look a little bit more reasonable if you were willing to put in the effort to adapt it from just a pile of random comments and jokes to possessing an overall concept. As it sits now it is QVFD or ICU material, sorry.
Concept:	2	This concept has been done before, almost "to death" you might say. If you were willing you could make it from an entirely different perspective, singing the virtues of "blatant crap", a song about "blatant crap", anything. Satiric Viewpoint is one of the most important things to have in an article. Direct 1 to 1 parody is, well, not held that highly (unless it is really clever) and, in this case, I am not sure that was even parody. Saying Greetings Uncyclopedians. For your Pleasure, I have <slash>stolen</slash> copied and pasted the sources of several Uncyclopedia Articles and put them All-In 1! does not bode well for an article.
Prose and formatting:	3	Prose was terrible, but that was the point, wasn't it? To make the article sound like a mental case? Formatting was good for a parody of that subject but would generally be considered poor in any other article. If you really want to carry the idea of spam along, format the page to look like spam. I personally think that formatting is one of the most important parts of an article to make it look believable/satirical.
Images:	4	Needs more random images if you're going to run with this concept. Spam pictures perhaps? As it sits now, in my opinion, the captions under the pictures are the most humorous part of the article.
Miscellaneous:	3.25	av.d
Final Score:	16.25	Well it delivers what it promises. You could really take this somewhere interesting if you were willing to put in the effort, as it sits now (and you even wrote it) it looks a lot like quite a few other pages. Sure it works, it is amusing but it isn't much more. Direct parody has to be clever to work, in this case the article barely worked You might, if you want, put an entirely different slant on it. Talk it up and make it sound like a spam email. This may give you some ideas. However, as this is currently on QVFD, the Admins are most likely going to take one look at it, think "Oh no, more vandalism/spam" and banish it from existence. Read HTBFANJS and Keep Writin'.
Reviewer:	--Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 05:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Please, please do NOT use Pee Review to save an article on QVFD, it is against the spirit of pee.