Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Democracy is not permanent

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Nothing is permanent

Any help would be appreciated --ShabiDOO 17:06, May 6, 2011 (UTC) --ShabiDOO 03:33, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ShabiDOO 17:06, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

I'll have this done by today, then I'm retiring. --Black Flamingo 09:43, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Humour:	9	Hi Shab. This is weird article, but there is something about it that I really like. The problem is at the moment it feels a bit underdeveloped and poorly written. There isn't much to say in terms of humour really because there aren't many jokes. That's not to say it isn't a funny article, but it is quite a dry and satirical one; I suppose it's the kind of article that makes you think, or points out a glaring contradiction in our society. Least, them's my thoughts.
Concept:	6	I like the moralising tone of the narrator, but I think it needs tidying up. For the most part you stick to the second person (i.e. "you") but every now and then you deviate into first person (i.e. "I" and "me") and this can get confusing. My interpretation of the article is that the narrator is a slightly wiser person who is talking to the subject of the article about their life in the democracy, and how good they've got it. I think you should keep this up throughout the piece, rather than having these little anecdotes from the narrator (like where he went on holiday) which just seems to confuse what should be two totally separate characters. The place this is most evident is the end of the article, where you hit us with the "sort-of punchline" about the guy not even bothering to vote. This is a very intelligent satirical point you make, but it could come off a lot better if you think about the way you present your narrator. First of all, change it so it's in second person like the rest of the article (i.e. "you're safe here etc."), then reword it so the narrator is trying to convince the subject to vote in the next election (forcefully if you want, that's up to you I guess). This way, the moralising will work a lot better, because you've got two distinct characters: the ignorant but happy subject and this strange, moralising and slightly mysterious narrator. If you wanted him to be threatening there could be some nice irony that even in a democracy you're not safe from the Government - but that might not be want you're intending. Perhaps you just want the narrator to be scornful of the subject's ignorance. In any case have a think about it. Do you see what I'm talking about here? I hope so because I feel I'm not explaining it very well.
Prose and formatting:	5	The way the article starts is a little confusing. The way you begin midway through a sentence, with the word "and", feels like you're following on from the title or something (although that is just a guess). Even if this is the case, it's hard to follow. Perhaps it would be better to start with something like: "Is Democracy Permanent? you wonder as you scrape your plate..." for instance. Another thing I'd probably take a look at is the bit where you call the meal "faggy". The problem with the word is that it makes the narrator seems as hateful as the subject - which doesn't work for me. It's ok for the subject to equate "foreign" with "faggy" because he's an idiot, but you need to reword this so it's more critical of the person who thinks it's "faggy". Know what I mean? Then the little anecdote about the mayor is really confusing. It's not that it's a bad story, but your intro is supposed to introduce what the article's going to be about, this only muddles things and it wasn't until the second section when I realised what the hell you were actually talking about. You can keep the story if you want but not here. By all means talk about the "small shit", but keep it general and brief so your reader isn't getting confused, and can spend this section figuring out the subject matter. The first paragraph of the "Awesomest" section is confusing too. You start talking about a tyrant, and I couldn't tell whether you'd suddenly switched subjects or if you were talking about the original subject's leader(s). Generally, this paragraph is hard to follow too. There are little phrases here and there that sound a bit clunky. Now I know English isn't your first language so I'll let you off here, but if you want this featured some day you're going to have to take another look at them. Here are a few: "Her confusing commentary has never become more pleasant with time" - First, "confusing commentary" is a very clinical way of phrasing this, and not something a human being is likely to say in real life. I would say "mindless drivelling" or "pointless nagging" is more realistic, have a think about how you could reword it. Then, the "never become more pleasant" bit makes no grammatical sense. You're trying to say it gets worse, right? Good English is about being terse; saying things as simply and in as fewer words as possible. "Smacking with a big smile" - I'm not too sure what you mean here. Perhaps this is something that is lost in translation? Finally, I couldn't determine the meaning of the line "second memory of a media trash monster shit fest" no matter how many times I read it. There are also tons of spelling/grammar errors. I suggest you either find someone with the good grace and time to proofread it for you, or try pasting it into a spellchecker like MS Word (or some browsers have this feature I believe). A spellchecker might not find all of them but it would at least bring it to a much higher level of legibility, plus it means you're not relying on human beings to do it for you, who are probably less reliable. And on a note of formatting; you need a seperate section for footnotes; the way you do it now looks very scruffy.
Images:	6	The images you have are fine, but without captions they do feel a little pointless; like they could be of just about anything. They tell the story, I guess, but what may be a better idea is having pictures relevant to the subject matter, i.e. democracy and non-democracy, if you can find anything. This way you can get some more humorous comments from the narrator in the form of captions. I think this would be better, but I understand if you want to stick to the style you have; just come up with some funny captions and maybe get another image or two in there.
Miscellaneous:	7	Cheese on toast.
Final Score:	33	Ok so overall I think this has wonderful potential, you just need to sort out the ending, and the characters in general. I really hope you follow my advice here, especially on the ending, as I think it would make for an excellent article. You really, really need to sort out the prose, spelling and grammar though before you could get this featured. Spend some more time on it, and you should be fine. If there's anything I've said here that you want me to explain better, or if you want my opinion on anything I might have missed, or even if you're just lonely, please let me know on my talky page and I'll try to help. Keep up the good work and thanks for making my 101st review so enjoyable. Maybe I won’t quit after all.
Reviewer:	--Black Flamingo 11:21, May 22, 2011 (UTC)