Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Breakfast
Breakfast[edit source]
Rewrote this one on a whim while it was already on VFH. Might work on it a bit more but I'm dead for ideas right now.
TKFU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 
04:25, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
24 hours or less or this review is free. --—John Lydon 14:05, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
| Humour: | 6 | Judging by your comment about running out of ideas, I wasn’t sure if you wanted this review to be an actual review or you just wanted some ideas on how to fill out the article. In light of the fact that Festivus is only two short months away, I decided to give you both. I wouldn’t get too excited if I were you though. I just finished my traditional “Festivus Breakfast” right before I started writing this review. Anyway, on to the good stuff.
I really flip – flopped a lot when trying to come up with a score for this article’s humor. I really felt like the humor was streaky. What I mean by that is, I found the beginning pretty humorous, then the middle was a little flat, promptly picked back up for a few moments, then fell flat again. Finally, the ending was probably the funniest part in my opinion. I couldn’t help but feel that the second section, “The History of Breakis Fuast” didn’t seem to fit the flow of the rest of the article. Allow me to explain why. The first section starts out as one would expect an encyclopedia type entry to. It sums up what the article is about and gives a little bit of detail to the reader. The third, and fourth paragraphs also seem to follow the typical encyclopedic entry format. They stay on topic and the humor is very straightforward. The second paragraph, however, seems to roll off into the random side of things. Take the line “However, evidence suggests that breakfast was in fact invented in the early part of the first century A.D. by Jesus Christ, who turned water into breakfast (and then into water again, due to being a waster and having little else to do).” For example. It’s certainly not a bad line, it it’s by no means anywhere close to being one of the more random things I’ve read on this site, but the stark contrast between this section and the rest of the article, which is very straightforward, makes it stand out like a sore thumb. I was also confused by the title of this section. With a header like “The History of Breakis Fuast” I was fully expecting something about how the name had evolved and different “breakfast” practices throughout time. I think you brushed on the history aspect, but could go much more in depth. For instance (*Idea Alert*) I would have liked to have seen some early “failed” experiments with breakfast. Maybe some caveman distilling dinosaur droppings, or Ancient Romans getting drunk but outlawing it after a local drunk burnt down the city. Whatever your ideas are, I really think that if your going to lean to the random side in this section, you need to go more in depth and throw in some ties to reality here and there. In my examples, Rome burning to the ground is historically accurate, and adds a little reality for the reader to bite into. The only other nitpick I have with the humor is that I was really confused by the line “Because of strict alcohol laws in Mississippi, breakfast must be served by an old man wearing overalls, this is so customers get the right sensation out of eating breakfast.” In the third section. Again, it seems like a very straightforward, informative section, and suddenly the reader is thrown a random comment without any explanation. If you like the line, I would suggest setting it up for the reader instead of just throwing it out there. Maybe you could mention that after prohibition, various states set up different laws and regulations regarding breakfast. Then you can list a few. This way you can add a few more silly laws and the reader understands why they’re out in left field. |
| Concept: | 5 | Again, I had real trouble settling on whether I loved this idea or hated it. I enjoyed the way you took a tired joke like drinking in the morning and turned it into a sort of tongue in cheek encyclopedic entry. The downside was that drinking, especially excessive drinking, has been done more times on this site than Paris Hilton at a frat party. In order to make your article really pop, I feel it has to be pulled off flawlessly.
I thought the way you started out was the best approach. Very straightforward, very tongue in cheek. (Sorry about the repetive use of that phrase, but when I tried to Google synonyms for that phrase, I got a bunch of Asian porn links.) I would suggest shying away from the random side of things and staying as close to an encyclopedia feel as possible. The only way I can see random humor working in this scenario is if it has a solid base in reality, like the example I gave about the Mississippi law in the humor section. |
| Prose and formatting: | 6 | I did notice a few grammatical errors, but nothing bad enough to lose a reader in my opinion. A quick run through by the Proof Reading Service would clear most of the issues up.
After a few more read throughs, I started to have an issue with the placement of the second section. I’m not sure exactly why, but it just doesn’t seem to fit the flow of the article. We have the intro, then into the history of breakfast, then we pause for a section about alcohol content, and then into modern breakfast. I really think it would serve the article better to move the “Alcohol Content” section ahead of the histoy section. Alternatively, you could combine most of the “Content” section with the intro and take the part about Mississippi out and create a new section towards the end of the article titled something like “Breakfast Laws” and expand in the manner I stated in the humor section. On a final note, the last section, while probably my favorite, tends to toe the line of being listcruft. I may not know what I did last night or who that strange woman in my bed is, but if theres one thing I do know, it’s that listcruft is a big no no in these here parts. Here again, I stand conflicted. I really enjoy the definitions you came up with but I feel they need to be expanded upon to keep them from feeling like a list and more like an article section. The first definition, the “Alaskan Stumbling Bear Breakfast”, is a great example of what I think the defintions should look like. Consequently it is also my favorite. The joke about looking for Russia is pure gold. If you change it, I may have to track you down. I’m getting off topic though. I really think just coming up with an extra sentence or two for each definition would really do wonders for this section. |
| Images: | 5 | I really only have one gripe for this section. I feel like the last image comes off as feeling forced. What I mean is, the image has nothing to do with alcohol. In fact it kind of works against your article. Your setting the whole article up to explain to the reader that breakfast is comprised solely of different types of alcohol, yet we have a guy holding waffles and syrup. Also, he looks weird, but I won’t hold that against you. I’m not sure how you’re chopping skills are, but if you could replace the syrup the guy is holding with some type of alcohol, the image would be fantastic. If you’re not up to the task, I’m sure someone over at RadicalX’s Corner would be able to whip it up in a jiffy. They really have some skills over there. |
| Miscellaneous: | 5.5 | Averaged Score |
| Final Score: | 27.5 | I really felt like the random moments littered throughout this article tend to hurt it more than anything. As I stated in several different spots, I feel like the only way you can make the random stuff work is to mix it with a heavy dose of reality. I think that the semi-serious, encylopedic approach is definitely the best route for this topic. |
| Reviewer: | --—John Lydon 07:28, September 14, 2010 (UTC) | |
Thanks for the tips. It's pretty inconsistent because I basically just picked and chose the best lines from the previous version and padded on the rest but I guess I can try to integrate them in better if I have the time, which I probably won't because college is overwhelming and I've got little time for little more than a little cursory editing. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 05:50, September 15, 2010 (UTC)