Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Lucy Pinder (2)
I'd really appreciate it if someone could read this over and give advice on it. Thanks! --Dr. Fenwick 02:07, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
| Humour: | 6 | This isn't going to be a particularly awesome review or anything as I'm afraid I don't have that much to say about your article, but your request has been sitting there for bloody ages now and sometimes you've just got to review something regardless of how few ideas you have.
I'll probably deal with most of your problems under Concept, as I think that's where most of them lie. Just to quickly look at your humour, however... It's not bad really. The way you make jokes about her breasts is quite well done, usually employing diversion techniques to achieve this. A lot of the other jokes aren't quite as refined however, and are usually just "asides" that don't make a whole lot of sense. The one where you say Manchester is England's version of Hollywood, for instance. I see what you're getting at, but I don't think a sarcastic remark in brackets at the end of the sentence is the best way to go about it. Generally, any joke told like that doesn't work, it's too cursory. Take your time when you tell a joke, use the same diversion effect that you do with a lot of the boob jokes. Try something like "Pinder set her sights on Hollywood, but, not being able to afford the plane journey, settled the UK equivalent; Manchester". Not a hilarious example I know, but I hope you can see why making a longer, prose-based joke should always work better than just tacking on a sarcastic comment in brackets. Try it for other jokes of this nature. At other times your humour is just a little too predictable. The clearest example of this, I guess, is where you say it was "about as useful as closing the barn door after the horses bolted." I would generally advise against using old, common sayings like this as jokes. Try something a bit more unique, something we're not likely to have heard. Maybe an ironic play on the original saying? I'll leave it with you. Apart from those few hiccups, your humour is mostly fine. |
| Concept: | 5 | First of all, I'd like to say I think you've picked a bit of tricky subject here. In my experience, I always found it incredibly hard to write articles about beautiful women (especially if that's the only notable thing about them). I've tried it myself, and although the article was later featured I'm still not particularly proud of it. The only article of this nature that I think really works is the one on busty Indian tennis player Sania Mirza, which takes the rather unique approach of being written from the point of view of a Muslim cleric. If Pinder had done something a bit more notable, like, say, Marylin Monroe, this might be a considerably easier article to write. Unfortunately for you, she hasn't; the only notable thing about her is that she has enormous tits and she regularly bares in crappy men's magazines. I don't think there's really much you can say about her from a comic standpoint.
Having said that, you do a good job of generating material for it, and in many ways you've written a good, solid article. The biggest problem with it is probably your underlying concept; the premise of your piece. Generally speaking, biographical articles work best when the author takes the most well-known trait of the celebrity and turns it into a running gag. So the Keanu Reeves article, for example, plays on his public persona as a bit of a space-cadet. It exaggerates it for comic effect and basically just tells the story of his life as if he really was as one-dimensionally airheaded as people tend to think he his. Like I've already hinted at, the biggest problem with a biographical article on someone like Lucy Pinder is that the only notable thing about her is her big boobs. There's not a lot you can do with that in terms of humour. Other articles on the site about similar women either go for the "her boobs are awesome!" approach or the opposite "she's a real woman with feelings you know!" approach. It's nice to see that you don't really go for either of these, but still, I think there are a couple of problems with the approach you take. I think you need a more fully realised concept here, as right now it feels a bit all over the place. You need something to focus on. One issue I had was that, despite reading your article, I wasn't really sure who or what you wanted me to think Lucy Pinder is. You introduce her as a "model, and actress and a philosopher," among other things, then kind of flit between the various careers she's supposedly had for the remainder of the article. I remember reading a long section that dealt purely with her academic life and some film roles (note: are these real? I couldn't tell), then suddenly you just said her modelling career was "taking off faster than expected". I was really confused here, her modelling career hadn't even been introduced at this point, and then all of a sudden it was going well. How did she get from being a student, to an amateur actress, to a model just like that? I hope you can see what I mean when I say it's unfocussed. What you need to do, in my opinion, is pick one road for you and Lucy to go down and stick with it. You want to write an article about her being a philosopher? Fine, just make sure that's all you write about. Don't go off on tangents about nude scenes in films or obviously made-up Oscar nominations. So whether she's a big boob model, a philosopher or some unique combination thereof, pick an angle and get rid of anything that no longer fits. I wouldn't recommend you go down the actress route, however, mainly because there's nothing hugely funny about it. As far as I know, she's not an actress, and it just seems strange that you would even make that up. If she is, or was, an actress, it's still not that interesting to read. Even if it is real, it doesn't seem like it should be. She's a model, primarily. Ok, despite what I just said there, I think there is some potential for the philosopher idea. Obviously she isn't a philosopher either, but it's just crazy enough to work. Most of the philosopher stuff, I notice, is somewhat related to your FAP idea. Although it's clever, it also sounds a bit strained and a bit silly as it is. I think the best thing for you to do if you want to pursue the philosopher/fapping route would be to go for a much, much drier tone. Focus solely on philosophy, perhaps, not even bothering with much of Pinder's biography. Take a look at Wikipedia's articles on philosophers to get an idea of the dry, intellectual tone you should use. The whole FAP idea would work a lot better this way, in my view. I suggest you take it more seriously, treat it like a real thing. In a scientific-sounding article it would be quite convincing, but lumping it in with a load of made-up movies and Coolio songs only makes it harder to believe. It makes it seem just as silly as them, almost. So make it more intellectual, if possible; cut the silliness and write about Lucy the Philosopher as if she really was one (still with the occasional subtle joke about her bosom, of course). |
| Prose and formatting: | 7 | At times your prose is a little messy, so I would definitely recommend a thorough proofread. There are also occasional spelling and grammar errors that shouldn't be too hard to fix, again a quick proofing and maybe pasting it into a spellchecker should be enough for this. I'm not sure if you're aware of the proofreading service, but they also might be able to help. It's mostly just little things like brackets not being closed, nothing to worry too much about. |
| Images: | 6 | Again your images were decent, I think what really needs work is the captions. There's not much I can say here until you settle on a more consistent approach conceptually. The best thing to do here really is to just have pictures of Pinder with captions that have something to do with whatever approach you pick (philosophy, for example). I would also recommend either having more or making the ones you do have a bit bigger. There's too much space in the article for pictures, the gaps between them are too big. The one of her ironing in particular is a bit small, I couldn't really see it (and that's like, the best one!) |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | My gut feeling. |
| Final Score: | 30 | Right, so to sum up I reckon you should have a think about where you want to go with this, as the central idea needs some strengthening. I'm sorry if I've been a bit harsh in some parts of the review, but remember ultimately that this is just my opinion. There are already some great ideas in here, and I don't think it will take that much work on your part to get it into much better shape than it already is. If there's anything I've said here that you want me to explain better, or if you want my opinion on anything I might have missed, please let me know and I'll try to help. I hope the review is ok. |
| Reviewer: | --Black Flamingo 17:03, November 4, 2010 (UTC) | |