Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/George Carlin

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

George Carlin

Tell me what you think! Bombs away. Mattsnow 02:43, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

I'll review it, for nostalgia's sake. --Sir Oliphaunte (განხილვა)   17:11, July 2, 2011 (UTC)

Humour:	6	Let met start this section by saying that I am a huge fan of George Carlin and am pretty familiar with his life story and his comedy. It was for this reason that I chose to Pee Review this article. And given that he was a comedian himself, with a particularly dark sense of misanthropic humor, I think George Carlin is ripe for satire on Uncyclopedia. But that is where I have an issue with this article. As an homage to the brilliance of George Carlin, it works great. As comedy or satire, however, it falls a little flat. Why? Because almost everything in the article is so true and accurate, that the comedic spin and twisting of the truth that makes for excellent comedy is missing. One example is how George Carlin got himself discharged from the military as an under-performer. True, true, true. But where is the twist that makes it funny? The same is true of the description of the Las Vegas incident. It really happened, almost exactly like described in the article. Where is the twist? I love George Carlin's humor and agree with many of his viewpoints, but I think this article could be taken to the next level by having more of a critique or "devil's advocate" type of bent. Perhaps a faux interview where Carlin says he regrets "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" and calls himself a "sell-out." Or perhaps taking some of his famous routines and elevating them to the absurd (for example, he has a bit where he contrasts baseball (pastoral/peaceful) with football (militaristic/violent) - maybe that could be twisted into the ridiculous by making it a comparison of baseball and Ultimate Fighting. In my humble opinion, biographical articles on Uncyclopedia work best when they mix the mundane and the true parts of a person's life/career, with outrageous and clearly false fabrications. On the positive side, the "infobox" section is great and has the kind of exaggeration that could really take this article to the next level if applied throughout the text.
Concept:	9	As stated above, George Carlin is ripe for biographical treatment, and his over-the-top brooding sense of humor is a comedic goldmine waiting to be exploited. So I think the concept is great and it is just the execution that could be improved.
Prose and formatting:	7	I am not sure about what to think of the the prose and voice of the article. I expected it to be categorized as an article written in the style of the person speaking, but it is not. It seems written in a way that serves as a direct conduit for George Carlin's own voice and opinions - really edgy, caustic, dark, insulting - and if that is the goal, it works great. On the other hand, if the goal is a more "clean" biography of George Carlin written in the style of an encyclopedia article, then the article needs some work, particularly with spelling and grammar ("Tunkin" and "Viet-Nam" might be the way Carlin referred to the battle and the war, but these are not the ways in which an encyclopedic author would do so). If the article is intended to be written in the way George Carlin himself would write his biography, I think that point needs to be made a littler clearer.
Images:	7	The images themselves (with the exception of the image in the Info Box) are average, but the captions help. Again, the images would be a good place to spice things up. Perhaps add some photoshopped images of Carlin, or have a picture of him from Bill and Ted's looking like he's trying to be bad-ass, but clearly failing because he is in a cheesy '80s flick. I have not looked for sillier pictures, but again, like the text of the article, the photos generally pay homage to Carlin without taking things to the next level with humor or satire. As a fan of Carlin, I sympathize; but as a reader of Uncyclopedia, I am looking for more satiric twist and humor.
Miscellaneous:	7.3	I used the averaging Pee Review function for this score.
Final Score:	36.3	I think I've hit what I see to be the biggest points. I give high praise for fidelity to the subject matter and for the clear heart that went into writing an article about someone the author truly respects and almost seems to worship. More people should be open about who they look up to or appreciate.
Reviewer:	--Sir NoNamesLeft (GUN) WotM NotM 23:01, July 5, 2011 (UTC)