Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/International Beat Random People With a Metal Pipe Day
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
International Beat Random People With a Metal Pipe Day[edit source]
Replacingawesomewithjesus 03:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
:I'll take this one, I have a free afternoon/evening --El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 11:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC) User booked too many reviews at once (3) so I have removed this booking --ChiefjusticeDS 21:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll pick this up while Sid is doing the other two. --ChiefjusticeDS 21:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
| Humour: | 6 | OK, your humour is certainly promising but does need some more work. The first thing you should do is make sure all of your article conforms to HTBFANJS. It is perfectly fine to write about nonsense but you have to make sure you do so properly. The parts that need most attention are late in the article. You should try to focus on the parts where you start to veer from making intelligent jokes to listing made up points in history. It would be far better to try to bind this day to actual events in history. For example you could claim that America enjoyed beat random people with a pipe day they held more than one per year, but beat minorities instead. While that might not be your idea of the apex of comedy, I think doing so would add a great deal more to the article than making an event up. Also you should make sure that you strike the correct tone with your jokes, currently they are pretty overt and can seem a bit too much so. Try to be a bit more subtle, rather than making a point that is a joke, try writing in a way that presents a view or makes a joke. Take a look at some of the featured articles for some good examples of this. |
| Concept: | 7 | You have a flexible concept that can be made into a solid article. What is currently missing is consistency of tone. You start the article writing in a superb encyclopaedic style but this tails off as you proceed through the article. The encyclopaedic style is definitely the right one for you and you should just make sure you stick with it. Currently you switch between first and third person throughout the article and you should ideally stick to one or the other. What you need to do is go through the article and get rid of anything that: addresses or makes reference to the reader, that uses colloquial language or expresses an opinion. If you need to clarify what an encyclopaedic tone is, then you can take a look at any article on Wikipedia, where the tone is excellent. |
| Prose and formatting: | 6 | Your prose are OK, but you do have a reasonable number of spelling and grammar issues. You should proofread the article carefully to make sure you get rid of these. If you don't think you will proofread well enough then you can place this template:{{Proofread}} on the page and one of the wonderful people at UN:PS will be along to help. You should also make sure your text is coherent. There are a couple of points in the article where your sentences become confused and you seem unsure of where you are going. Sorting this confusion out is simply a matter of going through and reading as though you are seeing the article for the first time. Your image formatting is reasonable, but you could consider making the bottom right image a bit smaller so the text feels less hemmed in by the images. |
| Images: | 6 | Your image choices are slightly problematic, I think you can do better than you have done with the lower two images, they feel crude and look ugly more than anything. Be creative if you do decide to get new ones and think of images that will suit what you are saying or compliment the article. If you want an image created then you could consider making a request of Sonje on her talk page, she is very good at the whole image manipulation thing and is (usually) amiable enough towards requests. Just ask nicely. Your other image is pretty amusing and you should aim to emulate it's style with your others. |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | My overall grade of the article. |
| Final Score: | 31 | Your article is pretty average as it currently stands, but you can do a great deal to make it far better. I am always on hand to help if you need me, just head on over to my talk page. I am also open to queries, suggestions and comments so feel free to drop by if you need anything. Good luck making any changes. |
| Reviewer: | --ChiefjusticeDS 21:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |
International Beat Random People With a Metal Pipe Day[edit source]
Replacingawesomewithjesus 03:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll take this one, I have a free afternoon/evening --El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 11:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
| Humour: | 5 | Well the humour is very hit and miss. The first paragraph, despite its awkwardness, has a very funny conclusion that ends the section on a high by emphasising the paradox of the concept. The second paragraph had no laughs whatsoever for me, it is far too meme-oriented (albeit an old meme) and seems very lacking and unconvincing to me. The fourth paragraph starts off with the suggestion that it might have an intelligent observation before throwing it all away with a cheap and silly (imo) closing line. If this is the point, I would have no problem, I just don't understand why you would want it pee reviewed. The fifth paragraph has some funny parts - the British court ruling, the American section... - but it seems too episodic and disconnected by this part, without any input from the anthropologist who is supposedly narrating the essay. Anyway, this silly humour based on quirks of real-life is what you want to focus on when you work on this article in the future. The psalm is funny (I think), albeit it very obvious, but it's a snappy line that reinforces the absurdity at the heart of the concept. I love the send off line (for some reason) "Fucking English", but this should be a conclusion of a developed theme of anti-Englishness within the article, not a random outburst (imo). Lastly grues, Chuck Norris and kitten huffing aren't in fashion much at the moment, so you may want to move away from such memes. |
| Concept: | 6 | Well, the concept itself is a little silly (obviously I am aware that this was intentional) and the pitch is clearly a kind of "epic farce". I actually find many parts of it to work very well, but you should definitely reconsider some sections of it and try and "tighten" the article in general. First of all, regardless of the nature of uncyclopedia, we still need you to introduce the article succinctly so the reader is gripped from the beginning and doesn't lose interest or develop a backlog of unanswered questions (as I did). Obviously, at the beginning, you need to make sure you introduce the actual physical/cultural manifestations of this day, a kind of vague overview that neatly summarises what you will go on to talk about. Don't just jump into the implications and reasons for it philosophically and anthropologically, tell us what this day actually is (as obvious as it may seem from the title) and provide a few anecdotes just to guide the reader along, don't make him/her feel jerked around unnecessarily. The second part of the intro is clearer and develops the dichotomy between the international sport that it is and the mass genocide and such (you should check out The Popularity of War for an article similar to this, perhaps you could get some tips from that too). You then proceed to blatantly plagiarise Fight Club, which will not be that well-received on a site that praises imagination and intelligent humour (supposedly) and is currently involved in a war against all memes. Try to be a little more original in your approach to the event. Am I to assume from the next paragraph that Darwinist theories are trying to be brought into this? If not, perhaps you should try to introduce some kind of real social commentary and develop it, rather than introducing loose threads and not maintaining any link beyond this pretty surreal event. "Social Impact" is at first very incoherent before becoming quite engaging and genuinely satirical of old British legal bureaucracy. This is the kind of thing you would want to concentrate on when you make changes. The final stage in this paragraph is much more like what you need to do, apply real-life to the concept (I refer to the 'rule of thumb' thing, which is a nice tie-in). Linking in the religions is of course important but you should certainly put this before the previous section as it should follow some kind of chronology and as it is very incoherent as it is. I think including the "Fight Club" section is particularly awkward because the rest of the article is on a more profound anthropological scale, I would suggest taking this out (and reversing the order). |
| Prose and formatting: | 8 | Your writing style, as I have said, is articulate and engaging, with good use of bold, italics, quotes etc that give it a little more character. Your formatting in general is good and breaks the paragraphs up with quotes and images to prevent the "tl;dr" effect. Your paragraphs are actually a decent length and your use of links is also effective. The only shortfall really is a number of spelling errors and a few problems with grammar, but otherwise you have a good handle on your writing. |
| Images: | 6 | Torn on how to rate this one. For what I feel you are trying to achieve, your pictures are very good and you have obviously put a lot of effort into it. However as your article is anthropological (unless this is some kind of Dada anthropology) I would suggest more application to real-life. Photoshop some pictures of real-life examples of Intertional Beat Random People with a Metal Pipe Day or celebrity brawls, just something a lot less random and memish. I'm all for imaginative images, but I would suggest tying it something within the realms of potential reality. The actual spacing of images is very good and you have the right image:text ratio at the moment. |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | Averaged (approximately). I've been a little harsh to be honest, if you altered a few things it could be genuinely funny, you certainly have the writing talent, I just feel its so incohesive and rambling, without anything at the heart to keep it focused and keep the reader interested. |
| Final Score: | 31 | I think generally, unless you do just want to create a silly piece of surrealism (which is fine, but I doubt it would be featured), you need to change things so that you are actually satirising something in particular about human nature, God, politics, life, Karma, whatever, as long as there is a point to it or a clear angle you're coming from. If there isn't then I'm not sure why you put it onto Pee Review. The important thing to conclude with is that despite the anarchy that this article continually drifts through, the concept in itself could be very good and your writing style (despite the number of mistake) is engaging and articulate. I would suggest rethinking what it is you're hoping to achieve with this article, then coming at it with a clear idea of where you're trying to take the reader. Good luck :) --El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 22:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC) |
| Reviewer: | --El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 22:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |
--Sorry CJ, I started this one tonight because it was a shorter one. --El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 22:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)