Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Chicken
Chicken[edit source]
Upsilon Sigma Sigma's latest masterpiece. Handle with care. —Pelozurian (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- What, are the reviewers too Chicken to review this page, cluck cluck cluckcluckcluck, chickens! Cluck you and the horse you rode in on. Motherclucker. Just passing by 19:23 25 6 MMX
- I was just getting started, but I lost the whole thing last night. I'm not feeling very motivated anymore...-- On Friday, 07:26, June 25 2010 UTC
|
Fear Not! John Lydon is here to Pee all over you! If he hasn't reviewed it |
24 hours. Book it. --—John Lydon 11:20, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
| Humour: | 6 | My main issue with this article is that I was expecting to read an article about chickens and ended up reading an article that sounded a lot like a PETA pamphlet. While I think it was done very well, I had to read through the entire article 3 or 4 times to get past the fact that the topic wasn’t really explored. I originally considered recommending changing the name of this article to PETA, because I think this would make a great entry on them, but the other PETA article is fairly well done and certainly doesn’t deserve to be replaced. The only other suggestion I could make is to weed out some of the PETA tone which changes your entire article. I’m really torn as to what I can recommend because the article is very well done. It just doesn’t have as much to do with Chickens as it does PETA. I don’t really want to start suggesting rewrites because what you have is very good, so I guess I would recommend either changing the article title, or rewriting.
Another issue I had was the fact that there are almost too many things going on in this article. The whole article starts out talking about the oppression of the majestic chicken. No problems there. Midway through, the article turns away from chickens and focus’ more on PETA. Finally, we wind out the article discussing hippies. These topic changes make it hard for the reader to really stay focused on what’s going on. There is light at the end of the tunnel however. Because there is some really quality stuff in here. I just think some of the fat needs trimmed a little. The intro you have is a prime example of my main concern. It’s a very well done parody of a PETA tract. Unfortunately, this is supposed to be an article about chickens. I think this is a prime spot to work on shifting the focus of the article away from PETA and more onto chickens. An easy way to accomplish this with your intro is to simply remove the line, “Friends, the time to act is now! Help us break the shackles of slavery so billions of these noble creatures can once again roam the planet in peace. Only then can we truly call ourselves PETA, the friends of all the animals!” This really doesn’t have anything to do with chickens and only serves to confuse the reader as to what the article is acually about. The 2nd section is where the confusion really starts. The first two paragraphs read like an encyclopedic entry. Then the tone quickly shifts back to an animal rights pamphlet in the last paragraph. I really think that you need to decide what angle your going to approach this topic from and run with it. As I stated earlier, it kind of feels like you were on the fence between making this a PETA pamphlet spoof and an encylopedic entry on chickens. To the reader, this confusion is magnified times 10 and really hurts the humor aspect. I could go on and on, but I think the point is pretty clear by now. The whole article tends to flip flop between styles and topics. I think you need to take some time and figure out exactly what it is you want to convey to the reader here. If you want to spoof PETA, you have done an excellent job, just change the title. If you want to create an article on chickens, then you definitely have some work to do. |
| Concept: | 4 | This is really my only issue with this entire article and it’s a big one. I feel like this really isn’t an article about chickens as much as it is about PETA. I think the humor is there, it’s definitely well written, there are no major grammatical issues, but this is all marred by the fact that the article doesn’t seem like an article about chickens. If the title of this article was PETA I would be raving about it right now. I really do think it’s an excellent article and a great parody of a PETA pamphlet. Unfortunately, this is supposed to be about chickens. That fact gets lost about midpoint in the article. |
| Prose and formatting: | 7 | Just a few minor issues here. If you were going for the pamphlet sort of feel for this article, I felt that the second section, The chicken as it was supposed to be, kind of dipped into more of an encyclopedia feel. I also noticed a few minor spelling issues so a trip to our friends at the PRS might be in order. |
| Images: | 7 | This was actually a very difficult section for me to score. The first image made me chuckle for some reason, maybe it had to do with the idea of a chicken shedding, I’m not sure. Anyways, I was all excited about the images then I hit image number 2. The chicken with teeth let me down a little. It’s a good chop job, I just felt it was kind of cheesy. I also was trying to picture a PETA tract and it just didn’t seem to fit that mold. I still think it’s passable, just not the greatest. The third image is another great chop job and adds a little humor but the sign in the photo says “contains no actual chicken.” I think the idea for this image is excellent in relation to a PETA tract because I can see them doing something like that, but I think maybe an image of one of those dead chickens hanging in a shop window with a smiley face sort of drawn on would work much better.
The next image, the one with the chicken being chased by the tiger is fantastic. It’s not really all that funny, but it is a great picture. If you chopped this, you deserve big time kudos. On to the last two images. I usually award a bonus point for the inclusion of hot naked chicks. So that’s what I did. Unfortunately, I then had to subtract a point for putting the hot chick so close to a old crotchety looking lady holding a chicken. So they evened out. Seriously though, they fit the whole idea of a tract very well. |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | Averaged Score |
| Final Score: | 30 | This was by far the toughest review I have ever had to give. The fact that you have a great article that is better suited for another topic is a hard thing to expound on. I apologize upfront if this isn’t the type of advice/criticism you were looking for, but I felt that it was really the only thing wrong. I strongly recommend changing the title, maybe even to something like chicken awareness week, or PETA’s week of action. |
| Reviewer: | --—John Lydon 14:08, June 30, 2010 (UTC) | |