Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Ned Flan-Diddily Flanders

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Ned Flan-Diddily Flanders

Pythonofdoom 19:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got it. --Nachlader 20:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	2	The past few reviews I've done seem to have reasons for not pulling off at all, such as unworkable concepts and typical random-esque humour, with no intended direction in the article except maybe VFD (a popular bullseye for some reason) and I end up having to give advice for future articles rather than for the article I've reviewed. This article is a comedy take on a comedy character from... a comedy. So the person in question (i.e. Ned Flanders) already belongs to a humour conginent. Oh dear, already it seems this article is heading towards treacherous waters. Also in the past few reviews, I've been told off for resorting to lack of advice, giving it up and going straight for the VFD section as well as insult-laden reviews. This review will be quite the test. I really did not find this article funny at all. I think I recall watching some bad news this morning on TV (a flight of stairs and an old man maybe, with footage) that got more laughs from me compared to this article. Things like; "decided to pursue a career as a salesman at the Kwik-E-Mart by murdering Apu and making a Squishee out of him but was soon fired", "Ned got revenge by having sex with Marge and getting her pregnant with Maggie", "After he killed his wife, Ned became gay." are such examples that can make a healthy, fit young man blind with the onslaught of inherent and endless anti-humour. It's given a 2 for trying, as the attempted humour exists (otherwise a 0) and it's not a Wikipedia article (otherwise a 1).
Concept:	2	As mentioned above, articles written for a comedy character (a character secondary to the actual Simpsons family, no less) are very rarily funny. No wonder searching for Ned Flanders redirects you to The Simpsons article. You tried to take matters to your own hands, nonetheless, but fell gracefully to the clutches of failure. Writing an article wherein the content suggests that a good person, in fact, commits horrible deeds is fine, and complies with the HTBFANJS (I've forgotten the accronym) advice, the reversal tool works well in some cases after all. However, you take it a step too far (the kind of steps that Galactus [1] make, that is). For example, you declare that Ned Flanders kills people, in fact... "IN fact.. he's killed MORE people than... than... HITLER!". Now that's just proves that you obviously couldn't be arsed to think of a better example, or just go through the evidently ardous effort of having to lose the line entirely and go for a much, MUCH better joke altogether. And even worse news is that it's already been done [2]. The "flanders as an evil guy" thing was done, probably, in the neolithic age (where most of the Simpsons' humour material is unearthed from these days). If an idea has already been done, it's no longer a concept. Think of new ones.
Prose and formatting:	3	Various typos, red links, failed formatting, poor organisation of text. In fact, the only best part of the prose in this review are the words in the template at the very bottom. They fed my malnourished eyes with some words that actually exist, unlike this "anti-crist" thing you've conjured, among other typos. Content thins out soon enough, after the reader is put through some kind of linguistic hell, for a nonsensical biography of Ned Flanders. The prose dips completely at the end of the article, resorting to listy text organisation. And even the lists aren't proper lists, none of the one-liners are marked out with an asterisk: When creating lists, use asterisks Because otherwise, it's not going to look like a list if you just put double-spacing Third asterisk added to make this list look cool Red links are red because it resembles blood. If you link a word to an article that doesn't exist, you get a red link. They hurt the text with it's impudent scarlet nature, they also hurt the eyes as they look ugly compared to the nice blue links. They're also dead links, hence red blood. Dead links aren't good if you want references for the article's subject.
Images:	0	You tried to add a picture, but failed. So no pictures at all equals no points, although I normally give a point for trying, this failed to even get the formatting right. To display images on your article, you have to upload the image first. Then, providing you remember to link to the newly uploaded image, dump it in the middle of some good ol' image tags, [[image:YOURIMAGEHERE.JPEG]]. Usually at least one image is good for article, if it's that short on content that is. If the article is longer, then it will need images to invite the reader's eyes to the agonisingly long text.
Miscellaneous:	2	Average'd, although any extra points would be added just for mercy's sake, to be honest.
Final Score:	9	Well... At least for this review, I've got some great advice for the author to finish on: have you ever heard of a site called Encyclopedia Dramatica?
Reviewer:	--Nachlader 02:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)