Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Chet Culver
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Chet Culver[edit source]
Cheapinitreal 05:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Humour: | 4 | When I opened this, my first thought was, "Oh, cool! It's really well written, and it's really well formatted. I bet it's going to be hilarious." Unfortunately, the article runs into some major, major problems with its humor. And here's what they are.
Biting satire can be funny, but angry screeds are not. There are two tried-and-true ways of satirizing a politician: satirize some parallel-universe version of that politician, like Gilbert and Sullivan when they set the Victorian English government in Feudal Japan, or satirize him in a generally good-natured way, like Parker and Stone in "That's My Bush."
|
Concept: | 4 | The fact that this doesn't have a funny concept is really the whole problem with its humor. It needs a better concept than "Fuck Chet Culver; I fucking hate that prick." |
Prose and formatting: | 10 | Nothing to complain about here. It looks like an encyclopedia article; the prose reads like an encyclopedia article; there are few mistakes. It probably helps that it was started from the actual Wikipedia article. |
Images: | 6 | They're adequate. They look like what you'd see on Wikipedia, and they're in places they might be on Wikipedia. So, I'll give them a 7. But deduct 1 for the low-res blurriness of the first picture; there are far better choices. |
Miscellaneous: | 6 | averaged. |
Final Score: | 30 | Uncyclopedia may need a new core policy: Uncyclopedia:How To Be Funny And Not Just Angry. We read articles here because we want to laugh, not because we want to pound our fists on the table and say "Yeah! Fuck the Iowa legislature!" |
Reviewer: | Hyperbole 03:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC) |