Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/No country for old men
No country for old men[edit source]
Pythonofdoom 21:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'll do this one. I told that other guy I couldn't do his, but this one looks like it'll be a lot quicker, so... BlueYonder
- CONTACT
Thanks, I need some help with it.
| Humour: | 2 | I won't say too much here, since I'm actually writing this bit last and I don't want to overlap with the other sections. However, I will say this: your article is, to put it bluntly, not in the least bit funny, primarily due to a poorly chosen, unplanned concept (see 'concept' section) that just doesn't reconcile with the topic of the article and overall is very hard to manipulate to produce truly good jokes, especially for a begginner. Overall, any humorous potential that the article might have had-I think there is some, though it's nothing monumental-is blurred and overridden by bad concept, poor prose, and general unattractive presentation (see the relevant sections). |
| Concept: | 2 | Oh, come on, man, really! Okay, sure, I see the rather blatant connections with US politics-which has rather more than enough articles around here as it is-but otherwise there seems to be, for a start, little attempt at any other jokes-the entire article seems to just be a determined endevour to parallel the movie with something vaugely resembling US politics, with no time or space taken to make humour about anything else-and when this has been done, it's very weakly. Such things as the character of Chigurh, for instance, could have been made into almost any kind of joke, but has insted been reduced to a vague reference to...Tigger? What gives with that, seriously? Perhaps the most off-putting part, though, is the fact that we're introcued to the plot with a completely unrelated reference to the now tired topic of the election and the completely worn-out joke of Dick Cheney and the accidental shooting incident. Completely unrelated and completely worn out-a deadly combination.
Now, don't let me confuse you here: there's nothing wrong with your article having a theme to it. Many times, such articles are the better ones. However, you have to know what you're doing in such cases. Above all, such themes have to be carefully chosen and their relation to the article has to be properly pre-planned. Now, NCFOM has absolutley nothing to do with US politics, and someone looking for an Uncyclopedian article on NCFOM wants to read jokes about the movie and its actors and story and the like-not vaugely related jokes about US politics, which most of them have probably had enough of anyway. Now, if your recurring theme had been something like the career of one of the actors, or gangs wars in the Mexican outback-perhaps narrated by a Mexican gangster, or a cowboy, or Chigurh himself, or whatever you think you can handle-it might well have worked out great. And of course, it would have to be a lot more fleshed out, and touch on a lot more aspects of the film, but since it's labelled not finished I dare say you know that too. Overall, mate, your concept just doesn't work because it's clearly a rushed off-the-top-of-the-head thing with no foreplanning. An article that hopes to be successful around here needs much more work than that. |
| Prose and formatting: | 3 | Can't say much nice here either, I'm afraid. The eyesore in the form of the incorrectly inserted image is one thing; another is the punctuation errors, the most blatant being the lacking capitals in the title-correct spelling in the title is one of the most important aspects, as it really sets the reader's impression for the rest of the article-incorrectly spelled and punctuated titles are very, very off-putting. And then, of course, there's the general fact that the article is half finished (yes, I do have to mark you down for that). |
| Images: | 0 | I think you might want to ask someone for some assistance in putting up images-the one you've tried to put up hasn't come through, as I'm sure you've noticed. Oh, and if you do ever get around to putting up images, make sure they're linked with the movie, for goodness' sake; random images vaguely linked to some random part of the text are just ineffective. |
| Miscellaneous: | 4 | Low score here because of the general untidiness of the article. |
| Final Score: | 11 | Don't think me harsh, mate-just doing my job, and the fact is that an article like this, which is clearly un-thought-out and done in an overenthusiastic rush, just can't flourish in a high-standard place like Uncyclopedia. We all have to learn that the hard way. Better luck next time. |
| Reviewer: | BlueYonder  - CONTACT
| |