Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Object permanence
Object permanence[edit source]
FOR YESTIMETOEDIT ONLY (Don't base your review on any of the other ones for this article that are here, YTTE. You'll do fine) • <Apr 22, 2008 [20:58]>
| Humour: | 8 | Good opening, elicited a few smirks and explained what Object permanence is. I like the little bicycle tangent you go off on and the moon/thumb references. "come on, I can see you behind that Pontiac, okay?" -Liked that one a lot, I think the voice of the article is good (but I'll get to that below).
Second Para: So you've thrown in a Wikipedia reference, hm? "They don't let any old idiot edit it" - did elicit a smirk, I like it, even if it's a slightly overused joke. For some strange reason I found it funny to be placed in the shoes of a baby (sort of...). "Thumb -> Moon -> Still there. Thumb + Moon = Moon, not thumb. (Don't get confused: Moon + Thumb does not equal a thumb-moon. That's just stupid. You're stupid.)" - That's also very good...Thumb moon...? Random, but elicited a smirk, you still haven't got me laughing out loud, though... Third Para: Those first three sentences elicited another smirk, I like the sort of distraction-like theme you're developing. " No no no, stop crying! I'm sorry, I'm right here baby. Please stop crying! Oh shit, where's that pacifier... " Funny, not as funny as some other lines, but deserves a little mention, it also brings the concept into focus (more detail below). "I mean, I hope it doesn't. I mean, I've never really tried it, but, like, it couldn't disappear... unless I'm God... But that's silly. That's, *AHEM*, just a silly dream. A silly dream from my youth..." - Very clever, good tangent you go off on that elicited a smirk. Fourth Para: I think that out of your opening five paragraphs this is the weakest, only one or two smirks here, this could do with a few more bits or bobs thrown in, I think. "I realize that they're paid so much that they would probably tell us anything, but that's not the point." A smirk there, nice jab you make at the psychologists (and continue on a little bit further down). "you're just a stupid baby. ...no offense." This elicited a smirk, I don't know why, but when I first read it I smiled here, so it's funny. There's a slight irony here too, because you, the baby-sitter, go on to get to reckon the idea is actually just a lie and get scared shitless. Fifth Para: I like the acknowledgement that it isn't crazy to believe things disappear when you can't see them, which opens this paragraph. It works. "Baby, you made good points, however you're forgetting that you're just a dumb baby that doesn't have a degree like I do. I have a degree, with a real signature at the bottom and everything." I like the fact that a baby made "good points" and that little degree reference in there. All good, again, I'm still not cracking up with laughter, just a few smirks here and there. THE MOON IS IN PERIL!!!: Now we start getting to the good bits. "but my MOM WAS IN ON IT TOO??" - Elicited a smirk, so close to laughing out loud. "We need to MAKE people LOOK at the moon before it disappears!! Christ, christ, christ, what the hell do we do now?" This paragraph really does introduce a feverish, humorous panic and paranoia. It's always funny to see (or in this case read) someone in a complete mess, or scared out of their mind, by something you know you would NEVER believe and something that you know for a fact is not true. It makes you feel superior, so you can laugh at them. OH SHIT: Yes I like the giving-up-on-the-moon thing. "Unless everyone is looking at everything... THE UNIVERSE WILL FUCKIN' END." I like that you're taking it to extremes and the real tone of fear I'm feeling, very well written. The reference to looting was funny too, it was random and unexpected but made sense at the same time and yet was so extreme. The pictures you start conjuring up of this baby-sitter and a baby staring at each other for dear life is hilarious. I HAVE AN IDEA + WHERE AM I?!: Good, good, good. It seems like there's little to fault so far. I like all the screaming bits. "HOLD THIS BOOMBOX!! YEAH, I'M LIVIN' LA VIDA LOCA!" - this made me laugh. Yep this paragraph was good. Overall: This was good, very good,, never split-your-sides funny, but still very good. It was tinged with elements of randomness and descended into insanity very well. The humour is probably not for everybody, but then nothing is for everybody. Good. Very good. Not quite a 9 though, me thinks. A few more jokes here, a few humorous references and you could bump this score up. |
| Concept: | 9 | Object permanence sounds like a rather straightforward subject, it's not something weird or strange (like for example the classic "List of weapons that don't exist, but should") but something you'd find in Wikipedia or any other encyclopaedia. In fact in essence it sounds like a rather boring, topic that is just common sense over-complicated by scientists (to us lay-people), however you've turned it on its head. This is another example of taking a "straight-forward" topic and funny-ing it. I like the general "adult to baby" concept and the constant distractions that take the baby's attention away from the subject. I like the descent into insanity from the baby-sitter, and that by "THE MOO IS IN PERIL!!!" (s)he has completely forgotten all logic and has gone with the baby's thinking. For me this was an unexpected twist that was very funny. |
| Prose and formatting: | 7 | The text is kinda in blocks and your article looks a little impenetrable when you first get to it. A little bit fussy, but that first image caption doesn't have a capital to start it (I've fixed it - so I hope it wasn't an incredibly clever piece of wit that flew over my head) which is just messy and careless. I think it was written in a fairly consistent style, as the baby-sitter descends into insanity. Towards the end use of the <big> tag may have improved it stylistically, just to get over the shouting and screaming a little more effectively. Otherwise your formatting and prose are fine, but do need a little bit more work to make them good. Oh and another fussy thing: I'm not keen on those underlined four reasons under the title "Object Permanence really makes a lot of sense.'", I think bold always works better in lists like those. The underline just look out of place. But that's really not a big issue. Anyway, it'll pass.
|
| Images: | 7 | Well you have three pictures... I think the best one in there is your Objperm.png picture with the caption "(d) WTF??? I'm 38 and I don't get this diagram." - that definitely added to the article. The rest are so, so. Your three pictures are, I suppose, just about enough for this length article. However I reckon a fourth, photo-chopped one could do no harm, maybe along the lines of misunderstanding object permanence, maybe even a sign along the lines of "If you look away from the moon it will disappear" - but in more official, sign-y language. Oh and also, why all your images right-aligned? I think the article would look better on the page if at least one picture is on the left, it would just space things out better...
|
| Miscellaneous: | 7.75 | Yay, average! You've got to love averages...Ah well, that was my attempt at making this box mildly interesting to read. |
| Final Score: | 38.75 | I reckon my scoring has been quite harsh: it's a good article, but I still don't think it's quite VFH, I mean I would still vote for it if it came up for VFH now, but I think it can be better. It's funny, but could do with just a few more funny lines. Images: as I said one more would be good, concept is brilliant, the formatting does need a little bit of cleaning up. Why are all images on the right? VFH is achievable with this one, just needs a little bit of work... Good luck! |
| Reviewer: | - 06:01 23 AprilSir FSt. (QotF BFF NotM) YTTE | |
Gerrycheevers[edit source]
Has gone through many, many revisions. It is one of my oldest articles. In-depth review, please?! • <-> Jan 11 (16:09)
 |
This article is under review by <font-weight:bold>Gerry Cheevers. Sayeth Gerry: shotgun!! |
my glorious return to peeing. get used to seeing my name on the 'reviewed' page again, caj ol' buddy.-- 23:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
| Humour: | 8 | sections averaged.
|
| Concept: | 9 | i really do love what you've done with this, i think i recall seeing this at its very early stages and wishing i had thought to write an article on object permanence myself, but this is far better than any spin i could have put on it. |
| Prose and formatting: | 9 | i assume this has been through the wash a few times, since your speeling/grammer are pretty much flawless. however, i hate when all images/templates are on one side, perhaps you could move one or two images to the left? |
| Images: | 6 | i'm torn on your images: they contribute nicely, three is plenty, but the captions just don't do it for me. i'll throw some ideas out as to what the captions might look like if this were MY article, however, this is YOUR article, and these suggestions can be, again, heeded or ignored at your discretion. that being said, i think a scientific caption for the baby one would work better, something like 'a child after acheiving object permanence; unlike an ostrich, it now understands that hiding oneself does not destroy one's surroundings'. the use of first person in the second image irks me slightly; i think just 'd)WTF!!??' works well enough. and finally, i think the moon image should have an all-out insane caption, like 'THE MOON IS GONE! WILL LOOKING AT PICTURES OF THE MOON BRING IT BACK!? AAAAHHHH!' i like UU's suggestion of the three-part image, of the moon, a thumb covering it, and then just a hand in a quizzical pose with no moon. |
| Miscellaneous: | 8 | i like averaging, it's my favorite. |
| Final Score: | 40 | you've got a winner here, caj. my preview button tells me my/your final score is a nice, round 40, putting it in the 'might be VFH' category. in its current state, it would certainly have my support on VFH, and i'd like to think that i'm an average enough guy that my opinion reflects the rest of the voting yahoos here on uncyc. i think if red light was as popular as it was, this one could be a successfully featured article as well. good luck! |
| Reviewer: | -- 23:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | |