Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Lake Baikal
My third article. If my writing still sucks then I'm hopeless!</self deprecation>--CandidToaster 02:11, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
- I'll have a stab at it. But only because I like your name
23:29, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
| Humour: | 6 | Ok I'll start by reviewing this one sentence I picked out, as it epitomizes a few of the problems with the article 'Every day, the fish valiantly give up their lives for the greater good of the Russian fishing industry, like a good comrade serving his country'.
Up until the second comma this sentence is good, but you're underestimating your reader. Don't try to appeal to the lowest common denominator, better to assume they know about Russian communism (if they don't they probably wouldn't be on a site like this anyway) and get on with the article, the joke is done once you reach 'industry'. Assume the reader is as smart as you, if you try to talk down to them (I know you won't be doing this intentionally but it happens) it won't work. So that sentence has potential, but there are too many 'dead' sentences. Not every one has to be a joke but they should probably be leading somewhere, for instance "Lake Baikal was formed millions of years ago as a rift valley, and over time, water has accumulated to form a massive basin;" looks like you just lifted it from wikipedia (I haven't checked but it certainly reads like it) and it doesn't add anything to the following sentences or lead anywhere. There's also too many sentences that just confuse the reader e.g. 'Even though the lake has a less than appetizing sewage-like aroma, it's still a very popular tourist attraction because of this, the Tourism Industry has branded the Baikal as the "Pearl of Siberia"' and 'Though many Siberians will espouse the lake's magnificence and pristine beauty, most Russians with actual power (rightfully) don't give a flying fuck about the lake'. It feels like you're trying to appeal to everyone at once and it just comes off as unconfident and confusing. In an article like this you need to state things as fact when you know they are wrong. And you need to sound authoritative. If I was writing a news article about the sun I might say something like "scientists have recently discovered the sun to be made of water" not "apparently some say the sun is made of water (but they are just crazy fucks)" can you see the difference? I feel like you were trying to keep a straight face and stick to your own 'style' when you wrote this article but you constantly lapse into these unconfident, designed-to-appeal-to-all sentences (often in brackets or with the word 'fuck' thrown in). Resist the urge. Keep your pokerface. And chug on. Brackets and negating sentences can work in forums and stuff like this but with an article you want to sound like an authority on the subject. Proudly stand in front of the masses and say "baikal is noted for it's beauty, size and levels of potassium hydroxide". When you seem to second guess all the time The reader can feel your lack of confidence. This doesn't need to be there and that's definitely something you can improve. 'No other place in the world has a freshwater lake' made me chuckle because you're being authoritative about an untruth and there's not a sentence in brackets afterwards to negate it. |
| Concept: | 4 | I like Lake Baikal, it sounds like an interesting place, and it's definitely well-known enough to have an article. However unless you have a really strong idea about where to take the article I don't think it's easy to make it funny. |
| Prose and formatting: | 6 | Passable |
| Images: | 4 | Not bad. Though kind of irrelevant if the article itself isn't working. Pictures can be the icing on the cake but the article has to be consistent and strong 1st.
In the seal picture there's another example of you 'talking down' to the reader. 'Lovable' = good, 'huggable' = mmm, ok but you're pushing it a bit.. 'exploitable' = NO, we all know seals are exploited, and if the picture itself is showing a distressed seal near polluted waters it doesn't... well you can see theres no humour there right? |
| Miscellaneous: | 5 | Ok to sum up, don't throw in factual sentences (maybe lifted from wikipedia I don't know), remember don't go to wikipedia for material, go there for inspiration. If you find out there's pollution problems and the fish are mutants, take it away and mull over it awhile. Then come back with your own perspective and voice.
Be consistent. I can't tell if you're trying to promote Baikal or slate it, but in the end be confident and consistent when you write. The Michael Jackson article is a good one to check out as it consistently praises the plastic one and makes all kinds of excuses for his behaviour. I'd recommend reading some featured articles too, there's some pretty good ones up there at the moment and I think you'll see a lot of confident writing. |
| Final Score: | 25 | Halfway to perfection! |
| Reviewer: |   01:05, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
| |
This is only my second review. I hope it's more in depth than the 1st and I haven't been too harsh! If not you can always ask for another one. Good luck. 01:05, May 24, 2011 (UTC)