Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Hulk Hogan
Hulk Hogan[edit source]
I thought what was on the old Hulk Hogan page was pretty lame stuff, so I've re-written probably 90-90% of it myself. Hope someone likes it, I spent lots of seconds on it! --Maniac1075 17:27, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently I'm doing this one :) 24 hours so I won't confuse my identity during review and chokeslam my mum or something. --Matfen 20:13, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
| Humour: | 3.5 | This article as a whole, in my opinion, just isn't very funny. Mostly because it's so very very very long. The stretching out of a concept to this extent often destroys any humour that could be done, as well as drown out the few jokes that managed to make it. This article needs some serious pruning. I'd go into detail about where, but honestly it's the entire thing. Every section has way way way too much detail. I'm just going to mention some of the more general stuff with this article, as to go into proper detail could warrant more writing than most University dissertations.
To begin with, there are 11 quotes, out of which I only found 2 funny (the oscar wilde one, and the Username one, which uncannily mirrored my own thoughts). Besides those, you don't really have an introductory paragraph giving a general overview of the man. This would probably help reign in your ambitions a bit as well, when rewriting it. The article has a moderate amount of random namedropping as well, with needless references to the Decepticons, the Iraq war, Siskel & Ebert, Knight Rider, Mr T, Mr Rogers, King Kong, Godzilla, Queen Elizabeth, MacGuyver, My Little Pony, The Police, Phil Collins, Robocop, Whoopie Goldberg, Jason Bateman, Ozzy Osbourne, and others I get tired of listing here when you can see them yourself. A lot of the stuff just doesn't fit. In short, there's just way too much content. There's even a miscellaeneous section and a picture gallery for stuff which couldn't fit into the article. So by logic, this shouldn't need to be there. If you're still unsure about what I mean, take a look at my own vain example using Christian Bale, god of all things great and small:
Notice how much more readable the newer one is. |
| Concept: | 5 | At least the vast 90% of it is actually about Hulk Hogan, and there certainly are a lot of angles going on in this article. But like I said above, limit these a lot! I've noticed you've attempted to give it some structure, but it still comes across in a jumbled mess. Split his life up clearly into sections about family, early, middling, and late career, and film career and such. Having a good structure can sometimes help the article write itself. |
| Prose and formatting: | 5 | Most of your formatting is okay. However, I'm working off a widescreen which means more words per line, and the paragraphs still go too far after needing a line break. There are also numerous grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, but I can't blame you when writing so much. |
| Images: | 7.5 | The highest scoring part of the article. However, if you choose to take my advice and reduce, you'll have way too many, and if you're still intending this article for VFH, image galleries are rarely accepted. |
| Miscellaneous: | 5.3 | Averaged using Pee. |
| Final Score: | 26.3 | This article has clearly had a large amount of effort put into it, and for that reason it is commendable. And despite my relatively low score, I do not believe it to be VFD worthy at all. However, in its current state it is, for lack of a better word, morbidly obese. You're quite clearly a fight-fan, so you'll know what I mean when I ask you who would win in a fight: Lean, wiry but intensely powerful Bruce Lee, or Rikishi? Guess which fighter represents the article right now? Guess which one you should be aiming for if you're going to win over VFH. Let me apologize up front if I've sounded pretentious or hyper-critical in this pee-review, but the reason I'm doing it is because I believe that you show the skill and capability of producing Feature-Quality Hulk Hogan article, that could easily be achieved with a rigouruous clean-up, liposuction, and perhaps having another editor look over it for you after you'd done a bit of a rewrite. That shouldn't be too hard, as despite my harsh score, you've already gather quite a following with a few other editors for your domination of the reqaward. :) Good luck! |
| Reviewer: | --Matfen 21:50, April 13, 2010 (UTC) | |
it's not as random of a name dropping as you would think.
Mr T & Hogan actually did tag up a couple of times, King Kong is a parody name to the wrestler King Kong Bundy and using the theme of animals of the WWF (world wildlife foundation), Queen Elizabeth is Miss Elizabeth, the wife and valet of Randy Savage, MacGuyver Series is a parody name of Survivor Series, Sting is a wrestler & also Sting is the singer of The Police, Phil Collins does have a video against the Ultimate Warrior which is linked to in the external links, as stupid as it sounds Robocop really did join the WCW which is also in the external links, Goldberg was a wrestler that I have parodied to be Whoopie Goldberg, Jason Bateman was on The Hogan Family --Maniac1075 22:09, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
- But therein lies your problem: a lot of people won't know this, so it looks random and name-droppy to them. And the thing is, "parodying" things by changing the names a bit isn't actually all that funny. Particularly not if you over-use it as a device. It works better if you just do it once or twice, and pick good ones to use. You have a choice to make: leave all those in, and make it look quite random to people without quite in-depth wrestling knowledge (a lot of us), but possibly give a chuckle to a few hardcore fans, or take them out and make the article seem more accessible to more people. I like the way you're working on giving us some non-lame wrestling articles, they're a massive improvement on the crap we were getting. I just hope you take this advice on board to make them even better! --UU - natter
09:54, Apr 14
