Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Dead Dick
Dead Dick[edit source]
Note: This is Dead Dick (numerical unit)
Funnybony 
08:22, May 27
- Yeah..I guess.
(talk) 22:14, 24 June 2011
| Humour: | 8 | Dick jokes. Always funny.
This article is funny, but there's a certain minor thing that is missing. Overall this article's humor balances out to around an 8, maybe a bit higher. However, this is mainly because in some parts the humor is around a 10 where in other's it's more like a 6 to 7. The intro is the main section in which I feel the humor is lacking, while most of the rest of the article ranks around a 9. I'll go through the intro paragraphs and try to clarify which parts I think need to be improved upon a bit. 1st paragraph The first paragraph is a good setup for the article, and contains sort of a joke in the fact that both Vietnam and America where taking the war lightly and using it as a game. Although not completely funny it does a really good job of introducing the topic. 2nd While you make sure to clarify what you mean by a "dead dick" in this section the extra information you give, especially the "Bar speak" part, isn't really all that funny. I'm not sure if you are missing a word in the parenthesis, but right now it doesn't seem to make much sense even for broken English. The second sentence is kind of a funny image, but it isn't really a laugh-out-loud sort of joke. 3rd Although a clever way to explain how America "lost" the Vietnam war by losing fewer dicks in the war, it loses a bit of its punch by the last part of the paragraph as the way you state the history of the war is a bit confusing, especially to someone who doesn't know much about the war yet. Perhaps switching the order that you set up this paragraph or setting up the beginning of the war earlier in the article would be good. I just think that this paragraph could be funny, but the confusion of the second part really draws away from the humor. Last The quote in this paragraph is a bit strange as a general not knowing upon which terms he is fighting is not very likely and seems a bit too out there for an encyclopedic article. Instead you might say something about how the Americans were too well trained and a lot of them ended up keeping their dicks even after all their other limbs had been taken, or the Vietnamese troops were old and didn't use their dicks anyway while the American soldiers were young and wanted to hang on to their dicks. Something like one of those would probably be better than Westmoreland simply not knowing under what terms he was fighting. The final sentence is good, and it leads into the rest of the article really well. There are only two other parts that I think are dragging this article down a bit. The first is the "talismans" sub-section. In this sub-section you say something, then go back on it, then go back on that. However, the last part of the section is a bit disappointing as it just makes everything that you said above true rather than ridiculous. If instead of the Myth Busters being at fault and having forgotten to load the bazooka maybe you could say something like "the dead dick distracted them and they forgot to load it. So in some way the talisman does work." Or something like that. Right now it isn't really very funny as there's no real punch line other than the ridiculousness of someone firing a bazooka at someone at point blank range. The last section I have a bit of a problem with is the "modern warfare" one. The first paragraph is just a long buildup to a masturbation joke, which is ok, but it could be cut down a bit to get to the joke faster. The second paragraph is more of a survival tip meant for tourists, it sounds like. Making a few more points in this section, either survival tips or updates on information for the modern war could be good as it would make the section the same length if you end up cutting down the first paragraph. The stuff that I really liked in this article were the Genghis Khan quote, the rare dick with all 6 attributes joke, and the fact that Arizona was one of the wartorn areas where dicks were coming from. I would give all those things at least a 9.5 if not a 10. A few more things like that and I think you could have an easy feature on your hands. |
| Concept: | 7.5 | I've talked a lot about the execution in the humor section already. I think that the actual concept that you have here is a bit weak, but you definitely make up for that with good jokes and pictures and stuff. There's really not much I can say to improve the concept more than you already have. So I guess I'll just leave it at that. |
| Prose and formatting: | 9 | The only thing I found regarding prose is something that may have been wrong on purpose which is the "bar speak" thing you have in the intro. I'm really confused by the "little bradda, you, long time" thing as it doesn't even seem to make sense for someone speaking in broken English. I'm not sure if you dropped a word in there somewhere, but it's really confusing, at least for me. I didn't notice anything all that strange with the format either, but you did play it a bit safe. All the picture are on the right and the paragraphs are fairly uniform. This isn't necessarily bad or good, it's just something that I noticed. It'd definitely not that big of a deal, so if you don't think you need to change that then don't. |
| Images: | 8.5 | Great images. They all encapture what you're trying to do in each section perfectly. The last picture is especially good as the caption devalues life just like the rest of the article. I wouldn't change anything about the pictures except to maybe make the first one a little bit bigger to take up a bit of the white space that always comes with the intro paragraphs. |
| Miscellaneous: | 8 | Overall "feel" of the article. |
| Final Score: | 41 | I really liked this article, but I feel this could use a little bit more work before getting featured. |
| Reviewer: |  (talk)
| |