Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/First!!!! (Serious Rewrite)

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

First!!!!

This article has a serious change since thelast review. Be as indepth as possible DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 19:15, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

I would review but I want to sleep already. carrot lol 19:20 March 22

Much has changed since the last Last Review so you can take a look at that as well--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 22:03, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Skinfan may do this, but if he can't you know the drill--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 23:33, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

¡Hola! This valiant VMI cadet is here to guard this article while it is reviewed by: -- Sf13 If he hasn't reviewed it within 24 hours since 02:35 EST 25 Mar, remove this tag and shout at him.

quick update, I'm halfway done reviewing this, but I'm packing and preparing for my field training exercises right now, but I will try my damnedest to get this finished by the time I go to sleep. If I can't, I apologize, but the Marines come before Uncyc. You'll know by around 1 am EST though. --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 22:28 EST 26, 2010

have no fear! this will be done within the next hour or so :) -sf13 around 1 am est

Humour:	2.5	The way I review, I generally put the majority of my comments and suggestions in the humor section. This allows me to be lazy keep all of my thoughts organized. I'll give you my first impressions after one read through and then go in for a more detailed look. Initial Impressions Well, where to start. Reading through this was a chore, I will be very honest about that. This was mostly due to the very poor grammar and spelling, but also partly due to the fact that I found the material to be kind of boring. I know that's going to sound a little harsh, but it is the truth. I do however think your section about Other Uses has the greatest content and potential. I'll be sure to elaborate a lot more on that latter in the concept section. More detailed look Well I've done some extensive digging for this one, reading the current version plus the previous pee review and the reviewed version. I know that the humor score is lower this time around despite the expanded content of this article, but in pure terms of humor this version while longer is less funny than the first. Even though I'm saying that, the score in the first review is more or less the score I would have given if I had reviewed the version from January 28th. I'll go through and justify my score, but my suggestions will mostly come in the concept section. Introduction Right, I am not a fan of excessive use of header quotes. I find it tacky and annoying. Granted, I often use a single quote at the top of my articles. Quotes are a good way to deliver a clever one-liner about your entire concept. Anything more than one or two quotes just simply becomes annoying. secondly, I feel as though your introduction is just too short. The introduction is a great place to give a rough outline of what your article is all about and to make broader jokes about the concept that wouldn't necessarily be good to drag on for long periods in the main text. You kind of do this, and the spirit of your introduction is in the right place, but I'm a big fan of having a paragraph or more for the introduction for the reasons cited above. History The technique of saying your subject is not the concern of science or historians can effectively be funny, but only under certain circumstances, and this is not one of them. This technique is best used when there is a brief explanation of the concept first (probably a sentence in length) followed by the statement about scientists not caring enough about the issues, and then not expounding any further on that subject. What you have done here is make the statement right off the bat that scientists don't care, and therefore have not done any research on the subject, but then you go on and elaborate for an entire paragraph about it. This completely undercuts the assertion that experts don't care and makes the overall effect really not very funny. I honestly just didn't find what you had here to be very funny. It was very choppy and more described the actual technique of "first" more than the history of it. You do have a chronological order, but again, more describing the concept of first than describing the history of its development and use. I hope that makes sense to you. This is a better section than in your previously reviewed version as that was just a crude clusterfuck. This does present a better "history" of the term, but I feel that this section still needs major revisions. I'll of course expound on what I mean by all of this under concept. Usage Ah, here is the crude content that Sequence was talking about. I agree with him, unnecessary crude use of language that just isn't funny. This is coming from one of the most foul-mouthed military men you'll ever meet. There are certainly times when profanity is funny or shocking, but constant use is never good, both in real-life and in print: there is a time and place for everything. As for your content, its very hyperbolic. The claim that someone would go out to an expensive dinner with all of their friends over an internet comment consisting of 7 characters is just too over-the-top to be funny imo. This isn't to say that extraordinary or outrageous claims can't be funny, but going over the top isn't. The same exact thing goes for the assertion that one would soil their trousers if they were not the first comment. I highly doubt the people who make these comments take "being first" as seriously as you are insinuating they do with this over the top statement. If they did take it that seriously, however, like online gamers do from time to time, that would be funnier. What you've done here is the equivalent to "The policeman however was not the first officer on the scene, and therefore shit himself in rage." see; stupid, not funny. same goes for reactions section, see above. Other uses I'm going to focus on this section under concept. How to deal with it This, while it is the longest section you have, is just so over-the-top and ridiculous that it is hard for the reader to suspend their disbelief. When a reader reads a piece of fiction they often buy into the world you have created quite easily, however, if the fiction is just too far-fetched or obviously false, they often can no longer suspend their disbelief, i.e. they no longer buy into your fictional world. This happened for me in this section. It just got to the point where I was thinking that there was no possible way anything like this would actually occur in real life (i.e. riots and human rights abuses), that I simply did not buy into your concept any more. This isn't to say that your fiction has to be really believable or contain truth behind the falsehood, but you need to still have a shred of possibility in your fiction for it to be bought by the reader. A mass genocidal riot and a witness protection program in order to protect online users who were being tracked down in great numbers by people so angered over 7 characters posted on the internet is just way too over the top, nothing like this could even remotely happen in real life. The reason behind this probably has to do with your user of multiple hyperbolic claims. I would simply choose one claim and stick with that for the sake of at least a little bit of believability. Something like claiming that a few incidents happened where anonymous users who posted first comments were tracked down and beaten in real life. This is still hyperbolic in nature, but much more on the believable end. FAQ I really don't like this section, from the COD4 reference to the questions themselves, this just isn't funny. I would completely get rid of this section; I feel like even with a very concerted effort to rewrite this would yield very little, simply because an faq doesn't seem practical or necessary for this concept. Therefore, dropping the section is best. Nothing to worry I assume you meant to put the word 'about' after worry. 'Nothing to worry' doesn't really make much sense. I don't like this section either, mostly because it directly contradicts your previous assertions that the issues surrounding 'first!' really are a huge deal. I mean, how can you claim that 'First!' led to mass genocide and human rights violations with ultimately the government slaughtering nearly a hundred-thousand people and then claim its no biggie? This would be a funnier non-seqitur if it were used to trivialize the genocide in the "what to do about it" section, but since you put it here in this section it simply makes that previous section even seem more outlandish and dumb. The other reason is that this is mostly true: it really doesn't matter in real life, and these comments usually are buried deep in the commenting history. This is the main reason why it really throws the "what to do" section into question. Final Humor Comments My recommendation in all of this? scrap most of what you have. build a better and broader concept and go from there. The previous comments in this section were mostly justifications rather than suggestions for improving. My suggestion is again a major overhaul. While this version is a serious rewrite, it is simply an expansion of the concept of the last version. It is just too specific a concept to be incredibly funny over the period of a standard article. Also, drop the wanton profanity, it really isn't implemented very humorously and shouldn't be included in a future version of this.
Concept:	4	OK, so basically I need to be upfront about the score here. The score to the left, the 4, is for the overall concept implemented in the entire article. here is my score for the concept of the "Other Uses" section: 7.5. upfront, the concept of creating an article about "First" comments on youtube could conceivably be made into a decent article, but it's a very challenging concept and would require little content and is hurt by excessive content. Honestly, after looking through your previous versions, I just don' think this concept is going to work. Therefore, I think you need to do a pretty extensive from the ground-up re-doing of this article. I think the answer to how you could accomplish this lies in your "other uses" section. first, a critique of that section as it stands as it is: I like the references to real-world and historical examples of people doing something for the first time. The vibe I got from this section is that they were first rather than they said or claimed, "First!!!" The bit about Obama just wasn't funny though, and this is coming from someone who is a HUGE critic of him, so that statement isn't politically biased. This concept of "being first" rather than claiming "First!!!" is what you should concentrate on when you re-write this. Along these lines, you should move the article to First which I just took the liberty of redirecting to First!!!!. You'll have to work out the double-redirect if you do this though. ways you could go about this? Well, that I'd like to leave completely up to you mostly since it is your article, but I do have some suggestions. Include a rough version of your first version of this article as a section within a new article. Now, don't copy paste it, heed the warnings and critiques of past and this review when doing so, mostly completely cut out the profanity. I would even completely rewrite the section without looking at the original, and then incorporate previous ideas that worked. keep it brief though. from there, expounded upon the entire concept of "being first" in something. historical examples would mostly do. comment on the human fascination of doing something for the first time, for example, Columbus being the first white man to confirm the existence of America to Europe, the moon landing, Obama being the first black US president, etc. I feel ass though this approach would most likely lead to a FA. based on this version and previous versions of this article though, I would say its safe to say that this current concept will ever amount to a VFH feature. Therefore completely re-doing the focus of the article would be your best bet.
Prose and formatting:	2	This article was a chore to read, this is probably the worst article I've seriously reviewed in terms of grammar and spelling, and I'm not saying that to be mean. I've noticed poor grammar and spelling in your other articles, so I'm going to assume that this is just something that doesn't come naturally for you, which is perfectly fine. However, that's what proof-readers are for. I use firefox as my browser because it has a spellcheck feature plugged into it. I have serious problems with spelling, its a weakness I admit and overcome. At any rate, I would highly suggest employing the proof-reading service here at Uncyc.
Images:	7.5	This is the best part of the article. The introduction picture illustrates the concept of someone commenting "First!!!" on youtube, but needs to be edited to contain the end parenthesis ")" on the date of the second comment. The concept of the second image works really well, especially if you go with the concept I suggested above. However, I would encourage you to make use of historic images to convey the joke. Perhaps a thought bubble edited onto the famous picture of neil armstrong with the flag would be appropriate. I thought the use of the famous cartoon of Sen. Summer beating his fellow senator in itself was pretty funny. This is an image I would definitely keep. maybe touching it up a little would help. I would also add other pictures relevant to the content if you choose to completely redo this.
Miscellaneous:	2	my overall level of enjoyment from reading the article.
Final Score:	18	well, what else is there to say at this point... Basically while this is a true re-write, it still suffers for the same reasons the previous ones have suffered. start over with the concept I suggested earlier of doing an article simply on First (not the redirect, the page itself lol) and I think you could make a really good article. Any questions/concerns/gripes, please feel free to drop by my talk page.
Reviewer:	--Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 02:18 EST 27 Mar, 2010