Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Lawrie Sanchez (quick)
Lawrie Sanchez [edit source]
KarlheinzKetchup 11:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 |
PEE REVIEW IN PROGRESS of giving you his opinion and pretending you care. |
Okay... I'll be quick, then. 
pillow talk 16:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
| Humour: | 4 | Okay, I'll be the first to admit I didn't really understand this article. I'm an American, and I'm not a football fan, so my first thought was "What the fuck am I looking at?" So maybe I'm not your intended audience - but bear in mind that at least 90% of the people who read this article will not be British football fans. So, when you write it, you should keep in the back of your mind: "Is there a way to explain this joke to a layperson without ruining it for someone in the know?" I did, of course, read the Wikipedia article on Lawrie Sanchez, but it didn't help me very much.
However, I do see that you're falling into a lot of the traps of the worst Uncyclopedia articles: random nonsense. Satire is funny; random nonsense isn't. For example, if you were writing an article on Mick Jagger, saying that Mick Jagger and Keith Richards got in a fistfight on stage has the potential to be funny if done right. Whereas, saying that Mick Jagger and Napoleon Bonaparte got in a fistfight in Naples in 140 B.C. is just idiotic. So, there's some stuff in your article that shouldn't be in your article. The year 1322 shouldn't be in your article. Englebert Humperdinck shouldn't be in your aticle. Cheryl Cole shouldn't be in your article. The whole "Zen master" concept isn't developed, and the picture of Sanchez as Yoda is bizarrely out of place in the article. An Uncyclopedia article on a subject should have a concept and should be coherent satire - it shouldn't be a gallery of "Hey, look at this amusing picture I found on the Internet!" |
| Concept: | 4 | The concept is where you're losing the plot. Think of something satirical about Lawrie Sanchez. Make it your overarching theme. Is the theme that he's a Zen master who says weird things? That's fine - have him talking in haiku, have him befuddling his teammates and opponents alike - but then, keep that idea running throughout the article. No immaculate conception. No dinosaurs. And, really, no "amateurish foul" - would a Zen master lose his temper and attack a player, but miss? A better take on that would be that, in a moment of pure enlightenment, his hand became one with (the ball? the turf?) and the ref misunderstood this and sent him off.
All I'm saying is: pick something and go with it. |
| Prose and formatting: | 6 | This prose is incredibly British. Sometimes, it's so British I can't understand it. Sometimes, I look at a sentence and I think "Is this incomprehensible because it's British English or because it's bad English?"
But I can see that sometimes it's bad. "Which isn't surprising really." is a sentence fragment that's also missing a comma. "His simple poetry, playing style and mind, convinced Reading" is very, very awkward (I think you're trying to say that Reading was convinced by his simple poetry, his simple playing style, and his simple mind - but it's not getting across). Stick a {{proofread}} tag at the bottom and a helpful Uncyclopedian with a better understanding of British English than I will come along and fix it right up. |
| Images: | 6 | These images are pretty random, and their connection to the theme of the article is unclear. Often, you can't have funny images unless you have a funny concept - and your concept itself is unclear, because the article is fairly random. |
| Miscellaneous: | 5.5 | 5.5 is your misc score. |
| Final Score: | 25.5 | Best of luck! If you want to put this up for a second review by someone who actually lives in the UK, feel free. |
| Reviewer: | pillow talk 17:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
| |