Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Grim Reaper

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Grim Reaper

This is a rewrite that I did for UN:CW. I've done a lot of work on it since it was reviewed last. It's up for feature right now, but some have voted against and I'd like to know why. Let me know!

• • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 15:09, Sep 17

I'll review this.... — Sir Sycamore (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yay! • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 15:04, Oct 7

Humour:	5.5	Not as awful as you think I think it is, or something like that/ I would say however that there are a number of problems which mark the article out for more work. Now I’ve gone though some of the obvious ones for you but I'll go through here things which would improve the articles. Intro: Quotes - a poor thing around one or two is usually the line on this, I think this kicks off badly, the image is aloe a little too jokey - for me article should avoid being too cartoonish or obvious, subtlety is the key - The Grim reaper is an interesting character. Slightly random into, also very short, "Golf" references etc. I am a firm believer in the maxim of "Say it, Say it more and say it again" - The introduction is something to get right not somewhere to dump some quotes and lame references. Not a strong start. 1st section: The idea of death going to prison for murder is a good idea and the image is a good one. you have a very bad writing style - the poise of the writing is very poor i.e. its clunky and is a chore to read, its also a bit convoluted and random and not really funny. Truth is what makes humour, you've gone thorough an intro and a massive first section and not once have you really parodied what the grim reaper represents = Death. Archetypal charters have to be dealt with carefully, and I think being cartoonish here is not the best angle. 2nd section: Awful, random and lacks clarity and focus - the grim reaper can't really contemplate suicide since he is that force, similarly you bring in nationally, education etc here; these are things that the character is beyond so it seems inappropriate. I think for a more biopic element you need to sort of put yourself in his shoes - I mean in crap Brad Pitt film Meet Joe Black, Death/Grim reaper is lonely sort of creature yearning for a the lives he takes away - you could have some comedy involving failed attempts to interact with his "Clients". in Bergman Seventh Seal , The Grim Reaper has "No self knowledge" so you could maybe have quotes of him saying that he does not call his parents anymore as he has lost their number etc. Poor handling throughout this section I recommend doing away with this section altogether. 3rd section: terribly blocky paragraphs and further lack of pace here. Similarly random - normal people might dream of going to Hollywood - deaths seen it all, I doubt this would be a coherent aim, further issue here hit h convoluted prose. I dislike the cartoonish image. Again poor handling, and amore focus and stripping back poor prose will improve the article. 4th section: Quite interesting to have him accepting employment as "Grim Reaper" as opposed to being just made that way - or being a result of Satan or mans fall from grace as it were. Paragraphs need spacing, on my course I often have to a task where text and stories are stripped back to bare components i.e. writing a section or story in 50 words and then working up - this would be a good task for this one, especially fluent and consistent voice with in the piece instead of random stuff. 5th section I don't get this: death does not age; he is the final symptom of these human states - a poor conclusion. It also feels tacked on here, conclusions are preferably not used on encyclopedic style articles as this is not strictly a style convention on their use.
Concept:	7	Great place to work from, needs a little more focus and major rework to be a more consistent and better article. Archetypal characters are a difficult place to go; here I think more focus is needed in order for it to work, particularly in reference to Parodying the Grim reaper as opposed to randomness and inconsistency. I think this could be very good article, though I feel that a complete re think on it is the way you go, I found it a chore to read, as it lacks pace, you have blocky paragraphs filled with random references and unfunny jokes; its also bit too cartoonish and silly; these are good things to have but a mix is healthy.
Prose and formatting:	5	Pretty bad, convoluted blocky walls of text. It reads like a poorly written story, than biopic of the grim Reaper. The introducing is short and poor and there are too many quotes. I advise about one quote and it's unlikely that future articles written by myself will have any quotes at the top of articles. Paragraph more, shorten sentence and focus, focus, focus on the topic not on randomness which is not funny. I recommend re writing most of it, maybe sot of write out a plan with pen and paper and have and reworking it into shape. I’ve tied some of it up, but much more work is need on this front, I think that humour here is being clouded by poor writing.
Images:	6.5	Alright, I dislike the cartoonish ones though the second one done and the last one are alright - If that’s the style you re going for, then that s that. I would look at this and this for better images. Not awful here, but something that can be improved on.
Miscellaneous:	5.7	Not great - there is so much potential with this, but it need more focused writing and clear prose. I thin this article could be one day featured, it’s a question of spending time to make it awesome. Remember time spent on and article = great article.
Final Score:	29.7	I hope I have been helpful with this, I am very critical of this article and I don't think its feature quality - Should you need any help or have any questions or queries, don’t hesitate to leave note on my talkpage:)
Reviewer:	— Sir Sycamore (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)