Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/MOCD

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

MOCD

Green 'Un 21:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

PRIP EXPIRED Though Hyperbole reserved this Pee Review, he/she/it/Abominable Snowman has not yet completed it. You may claim the review by replacing his/her/its/Abominable Snowman's name with yours.

I got this one. pillow talk 18:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	2.6	Heya GreenOne! Okay, I'm going to take this section by section: The lede: 3. The lede doesn't give me a clear idea of what the article is about. I think it's telling me that MOCD is a "disease" that causes people to misspell easy words - but then why on earth is it called "OCD" - which is absolutely in no way a disorder that would cause people to misspell (quite the opposite, really)? And who the hell is "Michael"? Right off the bat, I'm worried that you're Michael or that your best friend is Michael, and that this is a vanity page. And if it is, then no one has any chance of understanding it, least of all Codeine's mum, and then policy would dictate that we have to delete it. Origins: 2. So, so, so confused. First we have what may or may not be a joke about Hebrew being "redundant" - I can't tell. Then we start talking about The Who. What does The Who have to do with this? I'm not a big The Who fan, but that's Pete Townshend and Keith Moon, and a couple other guys who aren't named Michael, right? Does The Who have OCD? Do they misspell easy words? Then you have Keith Moon dying approximately a year and a half after the actual day he died - I can't say why that is. And then, at the very end of the second section, fully halfway through the article, I get a hint of what the article might actually be about: the fact that the word "Michael" was misspelled on a Who album. Well, okay. Is that true? I don't know. I even went to Wikipedia to find out. If it's true, they considered it too trivial to mention. Actually, maybe the fact that they transposed a couple letters in "Michael" is too trivial to mention. Modern Term: 2. I understood none of that. I don't know if it's making an obscure joke or if it's just being random. I just don't know what's going on. Rest assured that if I wasn't reviewing this, I would have thrown my hands up in confusion and navigated to another article well before this point. Rehabilitation Methods: ???. Okay, "extreme exposure to the letter X" can cure MOCD. So... huh... so putting unnecessary X's in a word can cure us of the semi-obsessive need to accidentally misspell the word "Michael"? What... the fuck... is this article about??! So if I said "Hey, there, Micxxxhaxxxxexxxl," I could rest assured that the word was basically spelled well enough? Then we have a 12-step program which, you know, is actually kind of an amusing look at what a The Who concert might feel like. But I don't understand its context in the article. And then there's a conclusion I don't get. I'm thinking: "Is there a time when The Who misspelled the word 'Michael' on some tickets and invalidated them all?" And I'm going through Google looking for any possible connection between the name Michael, The Who, OCD, and the other stuff in the article, and... nothing. I get nothing.
Concept:	1	Maybe this article has a brilliant concept, and I just couldn't find it. But the fact that I have absolutely no ghost of an idea what the hell I've just read compels me to put a "1" in this box. I don't know what MOCD is. I don't know who or what Michael is. I don't know if there was a misspelling incident; I don't know what The Who have to do with MOCD, Michael, or misspelling. No idea. This is literally the most confusing article I've ever seen on Uncyclopedia, because it gives me the impression that it is trying to satirize something. It's not just saying "Pie is the time I ate my arm with a tube of mascara" - it seems to be implying that I should be getting the joke. And while I'm not a massive The Who fanboy, I know a little about them. Man, I should be getting the joke. I expect to be getting the joke.
Prose and formatting:	7	Well, nothing wrong with any of this. There's arguably a too-short section followed by a too-long section, and there are some sentences that may not be worded in the clearest way possible. Honestly, I don't see any point in even tackling these issues. I mean, if this was the prettiest, crispest prose and formatting ever, I still wouldn't have the faintest clue what the article was on about.
Images:	6	I don't understand the hippie van, really, unless the joke is that Oxford was full of hippies in the early '70s. Which, maybe it was. I don't know. The other two pictures are of The Who, suggesting that this is perhaps entirely an article about The Who. Maybe? The "this is a photograph" caption is amusing. The Oprah caption, really, is not. Is there a time when an Oprah appearance replaced The Who? Or is that replacement satirizing another infamous replacement? Man, I can't say this enough: I have no fucking idea what's going on right now.
Miscellaneous:	1	I have no fucking idea what's going on right now.
Final Score:	17.6	I don't want this to sound too harsh, but I think you've got to bear in mind that you have an audience, and you have to consider who they are. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the guys at PEEING will say, "Dude, you missed the massive Obsessive-Compulsive-Misspellings-of-Michael-by-The-Who controversy of 1976? It took up like six news cycles!!" But I doubt it. I would be surprised if anyone who reads this is going to get it. And if that's the case, why put it on a public website?
Reviewer:	pillow talk 19:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)