Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Deadpan
Deadpan[edit source]
So yeah. I'd like to get this reviewed. It still needs some improvement, I think... But then again, I suck, so I don't know what to improve =(
--Kage Me 20:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, nobody who is registered on Uncyclopedia sucks... well, a few do, but they aren't you... • <-> (Dec 28 / 00:02)
| Deadpan is being reviewed by Your Source for Fine Scented Pee And Whatever Else Comes Out Of Him |
| Humour: | 5 | avg of each section
Well obviously you should be careful here. This could be gold if done even the slightest bit right, and terrible if done slightly wrong. That's what happens when you write funny articles on funny things. I liked the quotes (except Mr. T) and the intro was okay (why is it only British humor? nobody gives a fuck! You're leaving us out!), so I'm going to give this an "almost adequate" (Have you heard of Arrested Development from the U.S.? Great deadpan humor. Also, Superbad.)
First of all, I think it's spelled Etymology. Second, so that's the origin of dead-Pan? Pan died? Here's the problem, that might be okay if this was any other topic, but this is supposed to be funny! Uh oh, the prophecy foretold in the grading of the introduction is coming true! There was no deadpan humor in that, I don't think.
Oh man, even I wouldn't try writing a funny article on something funny. Nobody could make this article good! I defy you, gods of hilarity, to show me someone who could say funny things about humor itself!! It's like a surgeon talking about surgery: he isn't doing surgery while he's talking about it! Who is Scott? Why make a story out of this? I suggest that you don't even try to tell a story. Maybe go with a more HowTo feel for this article. How does one perform deadpan humor?
who the hell is Scott? What's more confusing is that you introduced him right as you were introducing "Pan" as in "DeadPan". So now you got me thinking: What pun is there in the name Scott?
Uh, what? I think I can see how you might make this article acceptable. You will have to get rid of this ridiculous Scott person.
At least you kinda left the Scott thing behind. For god's sakes, get rid of him!
Chuck Norris????? Puh-leaze. Get rid of the attempts to (A) make fun of Americans, because we don't get it anyway (and also, let's try to not push "Yanks" away from Uncyc), (B) have a storyline,
slightly better, but now you added grues to the mix. You're obviously not trying to be deadpan, which is good, but the audience is confused as fuck (or at least we Americans are).
Ha, yes! Out of the blue, "dry wit" and "dry humor" came out. Very good. Get rid of the rest of it, and have this be the very first section after the introduction. I'm serious.
please please PLEASE delete this. I'm being nice and not giving this section a score. |
| Concept: | 6 | I think that this idea is particularly hard to write about, and I think you may have already experienced why. The problem is that you're trying to tell a story: don't. Just talk about how dry and boring it is. That's all: just how boring is it? Have pictures of people yawning and so forth. Maybe even move this to Dry Wit or something. Make it boring but clever at the same time. |
| Prose and formatting: | 6 | minus one point because you had a section that was one sentence long. |
| Images: | 5 | Those pictures of grues and Chuck Norris only underscore how much you need to get rid of the storyline. |
| Miscellaneous: | 5.5 | {{Pee|5|6|6|5}}
|
| Final Score: | 27.5 | You should focus only on boring humor. Make this article as high-brow as possible. If you need specific suggestions, just ask me. I got nothing better to do. |
| Reviewer: | • <-> (Dec 28 / 02:34) | |
Some additional comments[edit source]
As requested by Cajek from MrN9000 his British friend regarding the above review and article...
Well I smiled all the way through while reading this, both the article and the review! It's not LOL funny. It's deadpan. It's clever, and works in subtle ways. OK, that sounds (is) patronising to the Americans, but this style of humour is an acquired taste. Mostly only acquired by the Brits.
Cajek was worried that he had been a bit over critical in the review. As usual he's been an excellent reviewer and was helpful in places. I hope the author does not consider the comments rude, as I know that was not your intention. You were not rude, more that you displayed that you don't really get deadpan! Which is fair enough because the author did explain that you would not! :-P
This article is definitely rather culture specific. I think it might actually only really be funny to Brits (possibly a few Brits), and will almost certainly be missed by the majority of the readers on Uncyc. Mhaille would get this I'm sure. It's definitely not "PANTS" though Cajek, Which your scores suggest. I'm not sure what to say though, because I think that you are a rather good judge of what's considered funny in this neck of the woods, and these scores probably reflect the kinda treatment it would get if it were put up for VFH.
I tried a similar tactic to this article myself with Gay on VFH. The whole point of that was a deadpan satire on homophobia and people complained that they did not understand it, or thought that it was crass. This article would be the same, well not crass, but they would not get it...
To the authour of this article I say this:
- Well done Sir! Tally Ho, zibbidy bam and good show! But fiddle sticks! Looks like dam Johnny Foreigners gone and lost the dam plot on us again!
- Dam, I can't keep that up for long! Seriously though my friend. You have two choices here. You can either fundamentally change the idea behind what your trying to do, or accept that a high percentage of the readers on Uncyc will not appreciate how good this is. I personally liked it a lot, and if you're happy to keep us Brits amused then it just needs a bit of spit and polish here and there and you can make this a really good 'British' article. Your going to struggle to do anything else I think though. You could obviously throw in some more accessible gags which would be understood by a wider number of people, but then I think you would rather spoil the whole effect. If you want my advice. Accept that Uncyc is mostly dominated by Americans and accept that this is not VFH material.
Leave this as a rather good article on deadpan. Which it is.
Oh, and I saved this from QVFD the other day
The American's did not like this either. Wonder why...
Oh, you actually want advice about how to improve the article? Make some of the pictures a bit bigger and maybe more them around a bit so the formatting works a bit better? I think you can vary the pictures from left to right and this will enable you to make them a bit bigger and still have the whole thing fit. Consider using <br clear="all"> or <br clear="left"> at the end of some of the sections as the formatting is a bit off on my screen. I'm using 1024*768.
Also consider removing the very short paragraph, maybe merge it into the other one?
Also. I love the quotes at the top. I have never seen such a good mocking of Uncyc Chuck Norris Humour at Uncyc. It's good.
For the record I would probably have given this a score in the region of 37-40.
Feel free to contact either cajek or myself on our talk pages if you want any further feed back on this. We are both very willing to help. MrN 
04:03, Dec 28