Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Conan O'Brien

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Conan O'Brien

Do Conan proud and be brutally honest. I can take it. I'm a man. ARRRRGGGHHH!!! A SPORK!!!

Padddy5 15:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Conan O'Brien is being reviewed by CajekHi! Your Source for Fine Scented Pee And Whatever Else Comes Out Of Him

Okay fine   Le Cejak • <5:02 Jun 02, 2009>

Humour:	4.8	avg of each section. 7 is an average score, and since this is really a bunch of one liners, I'm going to score it that way: The quotes, eh, get rid of them. Maybe you can get away with the oscar wilde one, but really, people are sick of these. Introduction (8/10): Yes: "...television personality, comedic performer, writer, singer, dancer, butcher, baker and candle stick maker." going overboard to just the right length is what we stand for here at Uncyc. Nah: ""I'm Taking the Tonight Show from Chinny Leno and You Can't Stop Me" why would that be an episode of the Simpsons? Nah: "Ass Monkeys 2" gimme a break, dude. Nah: the caption to the picture there. Yes: "Cigars Don't Go There: The Fidel Castro Story" sure, it's okay, even though it's random. This intro was a bunch of one-liners, which is good. I also like the giant, crazy picture there, but, like I said, the caption sucks. This is slightly better than average, so 8. "Childhood" (5/10): Maybe: "life threatening condition Gingervitis" first of all, speelig erorrr. Okay, life threatening, but to who? Why? Nah: "This totally suppressed his sex drive until he lost his virginity to The Who at age 52. Yes, all four of them." What the fuck are you talking about, dude? Way too random. Yes: "He wrote his first comic sketch at the age of eight, using ink he squeezed from berries that grew at the foot of the Blackstair Mountains." you're bringing us back to the actual character of Conan you're creating, instead of just making up random bullshit like in that Who quote. Nah "which was about a humanoid lump of faeces who rubbed himself against people for no reason, with oh-so-hilarious-results." it's too god damned random! Do you see the difference? Randomness is never funny unless it's inherent in the subject of the article, and although people can be random, it's not what we think of when we hear their names, so REMEMBER THAT. Nah "pet hedgehog "Alka Seltzer"" Random random random. This section has too much randomness to be considered an average section, so 5. "Emerging Talent" (4/10): (too random) Nah "many of them simply died from laughing so hard. Orson Welles was one of these, whose last reported words were "I believe we've found the next Orson Welles. Why didn't I think of having more turds in Citizen Kane? Ooh..." Orson Welles? Too random. Died from laughing so hard? cliche, plus you're trying to ram jokes down our throat (and we don't do that kind of stuff anymore). Turds in citizen cane? I thought this was about O'Brien, and only O'Brien. Maybe "just another uneducated, unfunny slob. Like Leno." okay, you're bringing us back, keeeeep goooinggg... Nah "woefully inept President of America (hundred of thousands dead. Oh wait that was Bush)." I hate Bush, too, but this is an article on CONAN O'BRIEN. Plus, Bush hatred is soooo 2005. Nah "Conan's knack for performing comedy was noticed by a young playwright, whose name was...William Shakespeare." too random, sir. Maybe "...could never wash his memory clean from my hands. Give him his own fucking show, you stupid bastards." after all that rhyming, the ending is funny. This can only work, however, if the entire article was about Shakespeare and Conan, which it isn't. Maybe if you wrote an entire article about how Conan was from the 16th century, but not here. Late Night: Crap years (5/10): (Pretty random, not a whole lot of ha ha) Nah "even wetting himself on five non-consecutive occasions." pee jokes are funny for four year olds, not really the rest of us. are we supposed to say "oh duuuuude, he wet his paaaants!!"? Late Night: Good years (3/10): "more and more funnier" either that's a grammar mistake or a grammar joke. Decide which and fix accordingly. If it's a joke, I obviously didn't get it, so fill us in. I think you get the idea. From now on, I'm only going to rate according to how random it is. If there's no randomness and it's hilarious, you get a 10. If there's no randomness but it's not funny, 7. If it's complete buttfuck randomness, 1. The old method was too hard, and I think you get the point. "Humo(u)r" (5/10): Liked "Conanciding", but this kind of trailed off into Bill O'Reilly land. There was some stuff about a dog and being naked that I didn't get... you really need to be serious for about ten seconds to set up your jokes. Good articles are 50% serious and 50% jokes or thereabouts, depending on how funny the jokes are. You need to set up your jokes SOME time! You can't just have one-liners! "Off Camera Personality" (3/10): Bit off a part of Jim Carrey's leg? Here's how you can test randomness: Why Jim Carrey? Why his leg? Did he have an episode where he... bit a leg? We don't know what's going on. Something about a wife, and another leg... meh. "Future" (5/10): Why did you meet him "in the men's room"? Seriously, why? See? That's randomness. That "human clowning" thing got a smile. KNN? What, so this is a news article? Why are you interviewing him in the last section? I thought this was an encyclopedic-style article! Why are you giving someone's name at the end? Randomness, see?
Concept:	7	Uncyc HAS to have an article on all famous people, it's true. Your article, as you may have seen, has too much randomness, not enough set up. Everyone has to be serious once in a while, it's how comedy works. Sometimes, you can be serious for long periods and still get gaffaws at the end! Randomness is a big problem around here: It's not funny when you spew random jokes at us... we don't get them.
Prose and formatting:	5	It doesn't look like a real article, plus it goes from encyclopedia style to interview style at the very end. Serious problems with that, my friend. Choose a style, and stick with it. Have paragraphs that are, at most, 5 lines long. There you go.
Images:	6	Only two pictures, and the captions aren't that great on either. More pictures, and better captions, would help.
Miscellaneous:	5.7	{{Pee}}
Final Score:	28.5	Very ambitious, and I think you're on your way to being a good writer. Make the changes I suggested and ask other people their opinions, Paddy5.
Reviewer:	Le Cejak • <5:46 Jun 02, 2009>