Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/HowTo:Fuck Off
HowTo:Fuck Off[edit source]
OK, I created this a short while ago as my first non-rewritten article. I was steaming through for a bit, but have now hit a brick wall I am unable to run through in Daffy Duck fashion. I'd really like one of those helpful reviews with a few suggestions, especially for the short sections where I'm obviously struggling. Fingers crossed some nice soul will help! --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 22:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
| Humour: | 6 | I guess I have two minor complaints (each worth -2 points, apparently): it's too short, and it's (obviously) repetitive. Well, there are lots of options for the shortness: Add some stuff in the first person? Give historical examples? It's occasionally boring to have to read the steps of a process. You had an idea there at the bottom about giving an example, and I liked the little intro at the beginning alot. |
| Concept: | 7 | Yeah, the concept is offbeat and interesting, except that the formula itself is repetitive: notice how it mostly relies on one liners? That's a problem because one liners usually only get a chuckle out of people. When someone goes on and on about the benefits of cancer, say, that is an easier formula to write out. You chose a challenging one, and I salute you. |
| Prose and formatting: | 10 | No problem that I could see. |
| Images: | 7 | They were okay, however one more would do the trick, and make sure that it is aligned with the other two. Notice how Daffy and the sign are different sizes, and are right next to each other? I know, it's just stylistic, but whatevs. |
| Miscellaneous: | 7.5 | Usually on misc I just average all the other scores unless I can think of something. |
| Final Score: | 37.5 | Some touch-ups here and there. Would it be VFH-worthy if you did everything I think you should? I think so, because it would be much longer and more interesting. You should shoot for "interesting" rather than for one-liners. That's usually what I try to do. Tell me if I helped or not! |
| Reviewer: | • <-> 11:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC) | |
Additional notes (on request): It looks like you made some changes in this after Cajek reviewed the article. Good work, incidentally.
I might suggest deleting a few exclamation marks...there is, to me, just a touch too much emphasis on hearty asides ("Hell, you might even enjoy it!") to the reader. Now, I'm not completely convinced that the line should be cut...but...well, I dunno. I might be making a mountain out of a molehill here.
Here are my confused thoughts on this: addressing the reader directly is a tradition in Uncyc How-To articles. A difficulty for me is that it is easy to overdo it, which makes the piece feel contrived and phony -- like the guy at the bar who is always squeezing your shoulder and calling you "me ol' mate" and cracking wise about your girlfriend. It becomes intrusive. After a short while you want to tell him to fuck off.
So speaking directly to the reader in a colloquial voice is an honorable technique, but one that needs a fine touch.
The examples are an excellent idea. It looks like they're your response to Cajek's comment that the piece was too short, and you chose a fine way to expand it. I think well-turned storytelling is almost always a good idea, and these anecdotes fit the concept nicely. I suggest you let the piece snooze a bit and then go back through the most recently-added parts to make sure the prose is up to the standards of the rest of the writing. (For me, the oldest parts of an article have usually been heavily evaluated and revised, and the newest often aren't up to the same standard.)
On Cajek's comment about repetitiveness: the words fuck off occur so many times that, for me, they create their own little nimbus of repetition. I don't know for sure what you can do about it...maybe restructure a few of the sentences to use "it" or "this action" or "the technique" instead, or maybe use the acronym FO occasionally. (Maybe not...that might be kind of poncy.)
But these are minor quibbles. This is a nice article, Under user. I agree with Cajek's comments on the appropriateness of the concept and the quality of the writing.
Good luck with this. ----OEJ 15:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
| Humour: | 8 | OMG that was awesome. +2 for you! |
| Concept: | 8 | The formula has been expanded to include not only the process, but examples. |
| Prose and formatting: | 10 |  |
| Images: | 8 | Improved formatting on the two images, and you didn't add another one to intrude upon my senses. See? I cares about formatification! |
| Miscellaneous: | 8.5 | avg'd all of em |
| Final Score: | 42.5 | I'll put it up on VFH, but we should wait until my latest addition to VFH (that I didn't even realize had that potential) has had time to grow (unless you're cruel and insensitive!!) Tell me if I helped again! Really, I don't know what else to add... I'm out of ideas for this rockin' article! |
| Reviewer: | • <-> 15:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC) | |