Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Nauru

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Nauru

PyramidHead88 David 01:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ow. If I had teachers like you in high school, I'm sure I would have topped myself by now.

Which is not to say you're wrong. Yes, it has its weaknesses, and many of the points you raise are valid... but you seem to be rather hung up on the lack of a satirical angle. I'm as much a fan of satire as anyone, but Uncyclopedia is not an exclusively satirical site - there's room for other types of humour. Still, thanks for taking the time out to review it, and forgive me if I'm a little too dispirited to do any major work on it. Who'd want to be a comedian? --PyramidHead88 David 13:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, there is room for other types of humor besides satire, it's true. In fact, often "very clever" works as a substitute for "very funny". But in my short experience here, I have learned nothing if not that this kind of randomness is an especial no-no. --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 17:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	3	There is too much random-style humor here. Perhaps you have read HTBFANJS? The section on random humor describes the (un)official Uncyclopedia position on it. The thing is, there are some funny lines in this article that are nice little finds, but most people will reject this article by the first two lines. The population number is classic randomness - is it funny that you are using a mathematical formula to report the population? No, it isn't. The history section is also rife with randomness. Coherent truth is funnier than meaningless falsity. There is nothing funny about identifying the independence declaration down to the second. The Political System section is a little better, because it holds together in theme more coherently. However, it is still guilty of randomness - Nauru is not Marxist nor ever has been. It is not automatically funny to call something something it isn't - there should be a satirical reason for any misapplication of facts that plumbs a deeper truth. For instance, if I were to satirize, say, your neighbors, would you think it was funny if I said, "Ah, the Johnsons - they are Mormon hockey players from Transylvania, and they have 99.9476 kids. I remember when they moved in on September 12 at 4:42 and 22 seconds." None of that is funny at all, yet it is very similar to what you are doing here. Is there any reality about Nauru that you could satirize? Absolutely. It has been devastated by Phosphate mining. You could satirize this by finding a way to blame the indiginous Micronesians for this condition, or minimize the fact that four-fifths of the island, already tiny, has been stripped and the people are still whining about it. Lots of opportunity for great humor there. Other instances of unfunny random humor: hospitals have not been invented yet - if your joke is that no one cares enough about Nauruans to share hospital technology with them, then say that outright. "Hospitals have not been invented yet" is not true, and not funny. "No one cares enough about Nauru to share hospital technology with them, and they haven't yet invented it themselves" is getting there. The religion debunking is poorly told - "by That Guy" is random. If "civilized" folks stole the indiginous religion, there is potential for great satire there. But this quick, meaningless blurb is not it. The Norwegian "racial makeup" is random and not funny - the old old "nobody is sure" gag is almost never funny. You just say the National Sport is Synchronized Swimming, with no additional information - in satire, this means you are making the assumption that just mentioning this sport is funny. It isn't. I must say that if you laugh whenever someone simply mentions sychronized swimming, then I respectfully submit that Uncyclopedia is not your kind of humor. All of that said, you get a 3 score (and not lower) here because this article actually does offer a few glimpses of genuine humor. The newspapers gag is amusing. The TV washing up on the shore has potential, but needs to be fleshed out. The quote is funny. Some of what is now just randomness could actually be funny if it is integrated into a coherent article, such as the International Condemnation section.
Concept:	5	The five is for the fact that Nauru is a viable subject to satirize. But it is not well executed here.
Prose and formatting:	4	Your formatting is very weak. The 4 is for good, proper spelling and grammar. The article formatting, however, is poor. The sections are too short for the large headers.
Images:	2	The images are not funny at all. The first one is forced, poorly and randomly, into being related to the subject at hand. The second one is random and unfunny. The flag image itself could be amusing with a good caption or related text, but here it is bland. The Modern Art joke has potential, but I don't feel it is well told here. "[T]he only national flag in existence that doubles as modern art" is almost funny, but somehow not quite. Maybe something more sophisticated, like "The flag of Nauru not only fosters Nauruans' nationalist pride, but also their modern art elitist pride." Or something.
Miscellaneous:	3	Averaged and dropped, because there is actually more wrong with this than just the specifics above. Obviously the randomness is the killer here, but I think more importantly, I drop this below the average slightly because of the potential for true satire that is not explored.
Final Score:	17	I strongly encourage you to read HTBFANJS, especially the stuff about randomness. If you can look at that and understand the issues (also look at my "Johnsons" example above), your language skills are good, so you could be a great humorist here.
Reviewer:	Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 03:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)