Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/James Bevel

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

James Bevel

The page is about a historical figure in America who has a literally amazing story and, at the same time, is almost unknown. I've spent quite a few months researching James Bevel, and then spent time putting funny to his story. Should get a fuckin' Pulitzer Prize for this baby, but I'll settle for a pee review. Thanks, whomever, for taking it, and no hurry (a 24 hour turn around isn't needed, take your time). Aleister in Chains13:04 13 5 MMX

As long as the "no hurry" thing applies, I'll take it.--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) 20:00, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and no hurry. In fact with this subject I'd suggest you research the wiki pages, etc., to check this guy out. An amazing fuckin' history, and to think he just died in 2008 and walked among us all that time. Al des chains 20:19 14 5 MMX

Humour:	5.25	Some parts of this were great. Some were weird and namedroppy. Your article is messed with by some basic problems. Prose is a pretty big factor here. See P+F. Now a section-by-section, blah blah. Lede: That stuff about the bell is kind of random. You probably like the sentence. So, what should you do? Well, you should make this and all sentences like it work into the concept better. A great way to do this is to add more stuff about how bells are associated with James Bevel. This puts more humor in the article, and fixes existing portions. Happiness all around! The fact that it rhymes with devil would work better in some section about how he was a "devil" or that he was evil. If you added some information about the sex scandal in there and some other stuff, it would make a good new section. I was also disappointed by the fact that you didn't satirize the fact that he had sex with his daughter very much in the article. You only did it in the beginning, really. Why mention it here and nowhere else? The BET thing seems namedroppy. How can you incorporate BET to work with the rest? Same advice as with the bells. I feel like this has more potential as more than a namedrop. For example, you could state that he was on a BET special for whatever reason, and talk about "the same programming he helped create". That's actually made of suck, but you can do better. James Bevel's early life, and testimony by Jesse Jackson: "Other breasts to feed from" seems less namedroppy, and more just random. I think you should just get rid of that, or change it drastically. Also, in the third paragraph, there's lots of history that you don't explore at any time. Early career: "After kicking around for a couple of decades, James Bevel decided one day "What the heck, you know what I'm gonna do? I'll change the world a mite by ending segregation". " Eh, doesn't quite make it as well as I hoped. I think the irony sounds a bit like a "cheap shot". It just needs some rephrasing. Not sure how you could do this, though...Anyway. "...Tennessee's lunch counters in an attempt to buy a Happy Meal." What? I think this needs to be explained a bit more clearly. I'd like it if you made it clearer that they weren't letting him buy a Happy Meal. The thing about sea shells and all of that seems quite random, but I think you should just remove it. I honestly see no way to improve it. Dr. King's prophecy: I really like this section, except for the thing with the canoe. It's an underlying concept in some places, and I honestly think it's kind of pointless. It doesn't seem to really have a point and sort of messes with the consistency of this paragraph. I also think you could've worked with the "drunken" thing more in the article, instead of just mentioning marijuana. The Rumble in the Chapel: The 1963 Birmingham campaign: Like the first paragraph. After that, kind of different. I didn't like the whole "Rocky" thing- namedroppy, and breaking the fourth wall. I actually didn't like this paragraph much. I think it's funny to portray them as actual children, but the link about "getting some sick" is a bit in-jokey. I really didn't understand the end of this paragraph much, except for the thing about Marilyn Monroe, which is random and has nothing to do with Bevel, so it should be removed. And the last paragraph pretty much coordinates all of the things I disliked into one paragraph, so yeah. The Selma Voting Rights Movement, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Baton: The title itself is kind of random. I'd like it changed. I also really didn't like the beginning. It was breaking the fourth wall (ad nauseam) and felt needless. The rest was alright, but not great. I would like you to add more satirizing factors besides the neglect of Dr. King. For example, you could put in some more stuff about how they are "children" or something. In the second paragraph, I think that thing about "slaves" could have been worked with further, for obvious reasons. The third paragraph is kind of confusing. I understand what you're trying to do, but this seems to be a bit "all over the place". I think you should stick more to the point after the first few sentences. Or even better, split them into two separate paragraphs, so you don't lose content. Also, the end was kind of jumping ahead of itself. Remember that you're talking about the past, and not the present. And you know my opinion of the canoe thing. Later life: Mmkay, so the biggest problem with the first paragraph is the lack of humor. I didn't like the magic thing, it seemed a bit weird. My opinion of the second paragraph is in the P+F section. Again with the canoe thing.
Concept:	6	Interesting idea you chose here. I wish it was a bit more consistent. Your execution wasn't too bad, but needs help. See the indepth sections. I put my advice for concept elsewhere, but I do give it its own score.
Prose and formatting:	5	Well, another section-by-section from a long-winded grammar/formatting Nazi: Formatting: I don't like the look of the top; I think it suffers from over-linking. It makes it pretty hard to read, honestly. Why? Because all of my attention is drawn to the linked text, and it's hard to look at anything else. Some of the links should stay, but some should get taken out. Also, I hate it when people put pictures on the left. There is much more space on the right; and it obstructs the text a lot less. Finally, some of your paragraphs are really lengthy. I'd like you to split them up a bit. Some are more than 4 or 5 lines, which is what I like. Prose: Section by section... Lede: Grr, this tone isn't very encyclopedic. =/ I also don't like some of your phrasing, such as the "Here is what he did" thing. This is what I mean by "not very encyclopedic" - to me, it feels more like you're talking to me than me reading an encyclopedia. But the fourth paragraph is where it gets painful to read. Too many hyphens, too many links, see formatting. I really want you to make this text plainer. BET? See the stuff about bells. Also, don't ever say "WTF" in an article; it makes my inner grammar Nazi want to destroy you. And the whole question thing isn't so encyclopedic. It's not too bad or anything, just my wish for this to be more encyclopedic overall. James Bevel's early life, and testimony by Jesse Jackson: Most advice here in humor. Early career: The first sentence, it isn't very encyclopedic. I really don't like the whole "quote" thing, and I would rather it in a third-person tone. I also think the second and third sentences are run-ons. I would like you to rephrase this into a few separate sentences. As UN:PRG says, huge sentences aren't quite as funny. I will be entirely honest. Due to the prose, I do not understand any part of the second paragraph (except the end) at all. It was really confusing, but I think the reason for this is the quotes and certain prose problems. I like this better: "A transcript of this meeting between Bevel and King (found in the Smithsonian hidden among "1940s grant requests under review") Note: I don't like the sea shell marine thing, see humor. shows that they worked as equals." "This is called a "full partnership" in most professions." <-- Simple rephrase, and I think it sounds much better. As for the next sentence, I would just cut it. I don't think it makes any sense. It would be better to say "Commonly accepted American history, however, does not even acknowledge James Bevel." I chopped some of the less-than-good parts and made it sound better. Dr. King's prophecyGrr, the beginning needs a rephrase. Better: "Parts of the hidden transcript of Bevel's meeting with Dr. King were uncovered by a janitor. They tell the story of Dr. King's prophetic powers. For example: King: "Well, if it isn't James Bevel." (I didn't really understand the "live and breathe" thing. Also, you spelled "preachy" incorrectly. Also also, in the last quote, there should be a comma after "you".) Also, I felt you could satirize this further. It seems sort of satirical, but I think it needs to be more "crazy and whacked out". You know, a bit more fun in there. The Rumble in the Chapel: The 1963 Birmingham campaign: Wow, that second paragraph is big. See formatting advice. "A couple of rounds on points." Err, what does that mean? In general, I believe this paragraph could be much clearer. I see what you're trying to get at, but it's kind of confusing. "Thousands of kids were arrested before the dogs and hoses got in their best punches. Because "Bull" Connor, the canine's and high-pressure hoses' acclaimed but overrated manager, had held them back for too long." (This rephrase is what I like better) "Thousands of kids were arrested before the dogs and hoses got in their best punches. This is mostly because of "Bull" Connor, their (overrated) manager, held them back too long." "when Dr. King asked him to knock it off." Knock what off? Clarity, needs moar. The Selma Voting Rights Movement, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Baton "got blown up" were blown up. Also, there should be a comma after "you know". Honestly, there are a lot of fragments and comma errors here and I am too lazy to put all of them down. I really don't like the style of this- it breaks the fourth wall too much. "To actually..." I would rather "They wanted to actually..." "went ahead..." I like "decided to..." better. There are more comma problems throughout the rest, but another than that, it was fine. Later life: ("Cohearts" should be "cohorts".) "Soon, yadda yadda yadda, then Bevel co-initiated the next largest demonstration in American history--the Million Man March--then yadda yadda, and died." This may not have been your intention, but this seems kind of lazy. Also, you put two spaces between those two "yadda"s. "Serves him right that historians, journalists, and monuments on national Malls ignore him and his real story. A 17-foot canoe! WTF was that nigger thinking?" I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but I don't like the random fourth-wall breaking.
Images:	5.5	First image: I have no idea what that link to freedom is for. I think you should get rid of it. I like the offspring one, though. Second image: The caption is a bit inconsistent. Would a sexually abused person say something like that? The image gives the impression that she is happy, and I don't see why she would be. Third image: This image is really long. I think it would look better if you made it a bit smaller. The caption is a bit unnecessarily long. I think a bit more satire could be worked in- I see where you're going, but I think it falls a bit flat. I would like a caption with a good punch to accompany the text. Fourth image: I would love that if the dog wasn't sitting in a living room. He needs to be in a restaurant! It makes anally-retentive people like me unhappy when he isn't. Fifth image: Did I ever mention that I hate it when images are put on the left? There is so much space on the right side, and it obstructs the text less. Other than that, this one is fine. Conclusion: These images are decent, but I think they could be improved on. If you implement the advice here, they'll earn a 7 or an 8.
Miscellaneous:	7	Bumped up your score a bit; the scoring is a bit low.
Final Score:	28.75	So, this article has a lot of potential. Some points the potential is realized. Some points, it's not. The main points: Improve prose; don't break your tone. Avoid namedropping. Clarity issues. Do this and this article will be really good. It's not too bad now, but I digress. I'm also sorry that this review was repetitive and incoherent, and I apologize for that.
Reviewer:	--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) 05:17, May 15, 2010 (UTC)