Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Giraffe Fuck Schizophrenia

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Giraffe Fuck Schizophrenia

Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 17:51, February 14, 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 13:10 EST 14 Feb, remove this tag and shout at him.

I can get this when I'm done with the Getting in God's Good Books article. --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 13:10 EST 14 Feb, 2010

Humour:	6	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 section by section for a more detailed look. After having read through the article twice now, The humor section probably isn't going to be the longest one for a change. Initial Impressions While at first I thought that this would be a fairly meme-filled article, considering the title's play on "bat fuck insane," I was greeted with only a minor amount of memery. My initial impression is that you have a good angle on a fairly funny concept, but that this is way too short of it's potential. The page also feels claustrophobic and busy. It may be your use of many reference tags, or the giant section headings, I'm not sure which. Section by Section Introduction I feel as if putting the bold title in all caps is a bit excessive. It doesn't serve your humor much and makes me feel like I'm being bashed about the head. You should probably just define it normally. What you have here induced mental chuckles for me, but it wasn't that funny, just slightly above average. I think what detracts from the humor is the very short nature of this section. Generally I tend to think that the introductory section should cover the basic outline of your article. Yours is simply a short history of it's first use and its very brief at that with hardly any sort of exposition for the entire article. I feel as though I'm being thrown directly into your concept here, which would be fine if your article was longer. I guess what I'm saying is that I think you should lengthen your introduction and possibly incorporate some of the information into the rest of the article in order to write a more broad overview of your article as an introduction. Of course, if you fully intend to keep your introduction the way it is, I would simply expound upon what you have in order to lengthen it and give more exposition for the reader. Conservative Fundamentalist Christians take up necks While fairly humorous, this section kinda made me scratch my head and go wtf. 1400's to our modern times (I say this because of your use of 'fundamentalist' and 'end times') is a very large leap in time with absolutely no filler of any kind. Your first two sentences are pretty good, but this; "There is no further information on this topic because I didn't feel like pursuing this line of thinking any further. If you, dear reader, feel that you have the intestinal fortitude, or even fifthitude [8], to complete this section, they by all means, have at it" is a no-no in my mind. Intentionally breaking the 4th wall here does not create a humorous effect. In fact, due to the short nature of the section and the article, it makes you actually appear lazy. I would get rid of this and add more to this section, there is a lot of potential to be funny here. I'll address more issues with this in the concept section. The League of Nations ban on the use of giraffes in warfare This also made me scratch my head. If you were indeed referring to the Moral Majority previously, referring to the league of nations next makes no sense chronologically. Now, as for the use of league of nations itself, this is funny since most people just use the UN when referring to this sort of thing. The LN was also largely ineffectual, so I suppose you're implying that banning giraffe warfare was futile. Again, this is short! I'll address this further in Concept. Giraffe Fuck Schizophrenia in modern times I realize now that your reference to fundamentalist Christians earlier must mean Europe in the dark ages because of your use of modern times here indicates as much. However, this is a nice opportunity to point out that that was my perception that was created because of the vagueness of your earlier section. An authors intention is not nearly as important as how an author's words are perceived. something to think about. I really, truly and honestly do not get this section, it just seems odd to me. A possible in-joke I'm unaware of? Final Humor Comments There were a few specific laughs, but overall I felt this article was of average humor, due to mis-execution and vagueness. for reference, I consider 5 to be a median score indicating neither humor nor problems.
Concept:	5.5	Ok, I'm probably going to have to create section for this in order to gather my thoughts on this, because as far as your concept goes, I found a ton of mis-execution and missed opportunities. This entire article could be greatly expanded to the benefit of how funny and readable it is. First off, I would definitely redo the sections and headings of this article. I would make the introduction an actual introduction to the topic and then have a history section including what you have right now followed by other sections pertaining to the topic. Conservative Fundamentalist Christians take up necks For the sake of not repeating myself for the both of us, let us assume I wish each section to be greatly expanded. Now, here is a golden opportunity to make fun of the middle ages, the catholic church, and the crusades. I would especially focus on the religious warfare in Europe and the crusades. You need to identify specific instances where giraffe warfare was used and what the technological developments of giraffe warfare were. If you want to stick with the concept you've already developed here about fundamentalist underground groups, you need to identify how the used giraffe warfare, and why they did so. A device I have consistently encountered during high school and beyond in college in writing courses are the five W's. Just because this is a comedy piece does not mean that this couldn't apply, it can still be used very effectively and beneficially. The five W's are: who, what, when, where, and why. I think that this could be greatly utilized throughout your article and it would be very beneficial for adding filler content that is both funny and part of the exposition. The League of Nations ban on the use of giraffes in warfare In the same vein as above, you should focus on the five W's. There's a reason why giraffe warfare was banned. In this regard you should identify how it was used and why it was considered a war crime. who used it? just the Germans or other parties? Modern Times a plethora of topics is available to lampoon with this: African warlords, vietnam, korea, WWII, the list goes on. What you have honestly doesn't make much sense, nor does it seem relevant. Adding More Sections after getting history out of the way, I feel that you could add more material afterwords. You could include the material you have under modern times in an 'In Popular Culture' section. Another possible section could be on the science behind it. a Consequences section could include the aftermath of giraffe attacks, how it has affected humanity over the years, etc. really though, I'm just trying to make suggestion for you to use since I feel that your article in its current state falls a little flat. Developing what you have here could really turn this into a very funny piece.
Prose and formatting:	7	For the most part you do a decent job in making this sound encyclopedic, I'm especially a fan of your footnotes, although a few of them don't relate to what you've tagged. Your grammar in places is off, but not terribly noticeable of harmful. For example, "would explode into 14 feet of frenzied, lethal head and neck, Hell-bent on killing whatever it can reach" 'it can' should be 'it could' since the sentence is in the past-tense. Spelling doesn't seem to be much of an issue either. Now, your tag at the top of the page I feel is unnecessary, but since you created it yourself it seems, I think it's fine for you to keep it there. Like I mentioned earlier, your bold defining term at the begging of the article should probably not be in all caps. You should also consider using smaller section headings (substituting == where you use = and so forth) just sot he page looks nicer. your giant graphic in the middle of the modern section also creates a visual barrier between your article and the see also section and footnotes. You need to decide upon better placement and size I think in order to five the reader visual cues to keep scrolling to check out your footnotes if they don't click on any of them reading the article.
Images:	5.5	Your first image is quite funny! your second image is probably appropriate, but I feel you should edit out the demotivational poster and just use the image. Your third image I really don't get. Now, overall I feel that your images don't really relate to what's going on in the text, they seem to just be generally related to your concept. I think you need to find a way to tie them in more directly to your text. You can accomplish this through effective use of captions. Your captions are all very generic and you pass up on good opportunities for one-liners. "Giraffe Fuck Schizophrenia is extremely effective as a terror weapon" is a very boring caption for a very funny image. I would caption it by tying the image into the text, possibly the modern section, and by describing the story behind the image with the caption. The caption for the second picture is decent enough, but doesn't necessarily beget many laughs. for the current length of your article, the number of images you have is fine, but if you expand it, you will need more. Again, try to tie your images into the text better for good humorous affect. the score of 5.5 is composed of a really funny image, two average images, and two below-average captions. what hurt your score most were your captions.
Miscellaneous:	5	This score is my overall enjoyment from reading the article. My enjoyment was rather average, mostly due to reasons you can find above. I feel as though this could be made into a much longer and funnier piece, perhaps even worthy of VFH someday.
Final Score:	29	I think if you follow some of the advice above, expand what you have, and focus on the Five W's I mentioned, you can turn this into a pretty funny article! good luck with the revisions, and if you need to discuss anything about the article or this review, please don't hesitate to drop a line.
Reviewer:	--Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 22:05 EST 14 Feb, 2010 If you found this review helpful, I would really appreciate you vote for Reviewer of the Month!