Alrighty. This was my mainspace entry for PLS. I'm not 100% satisfied with it, though I'm not sure if there's much more I can add. But I love the concept, and I had been saving it for a long time. Anyways, in-depth review please, unless you happen to find it's of high quality, and doesn't need much work (not that I expect one way or the other, but you know). No need to rush. And as always, tonight's secret word is Mudshark. -RAHB 08:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'll take a look at this one — Sir Sycamore (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
|
Sycamore is reviewing this
Have some Jaffa Cakes whilst waiting
|
| Humour:
|
7.7
|
Very good, I like this article. I don't usually like first person in an article, but here, it works very well. I particularly like the way you have the whole thing about observational comedy as observational comedy.
- First section (intro):Fine, seems kind of short, I would expand this part, I always have the motto of say it, say it more and say t again, here I would maybe try and have some conclusion elements here so a to give greater sense of pace and flow. Expressions like 'really sucks' are ones I would never use, I think this is just an American style of writing throughout so that’s obviously something to keep so as to keep your style of writing and observational comedy.
- Second section: Link in section title is a little off; I would remove this and maybe have that Cajek article linked elsewhere within the prose. You use lots of non fluency features (lots of commas pauses etc) these look fine though I would use more pauses rather than question marks or to add more realism maybe have a more expanded questions that use several point together; I think this will help a little with the flow of the piece. Bracketed asides seem wrong, i.e. (apparently rather shitty); this seems off; I would have all the prose fit together so as to add to the first person element. You could have (Aside) 'blah' so as to have an expansion on the points the comedian is raising.
- Third section: Weakest link, too short and stubby and seem to break a strong start, I would either merge this or create a subsection of it so that it does not hamper the pace. I don't think too much has been added here, and I don't think it really needs to stay to be honest.
- Fourth section: I like this bit, again nothing about the prose or formatting other than the images briefly here, I respect the idea that that should in someway repetitive to show the act is dying a little here, but I think different angles etc would look better so as to lose that repetitive look. Generally aligning right is good. No complaints here, looks a lot like a feature by this point.
- Fifth section: Great here, I think you capture the attempt to hold on well, I like the transcript style pause here and the alrighty bit. Not so sure about the overly pronounced text. I particularly like the way you capture the act dying though the article. I like this double sidedness in the article a lot and it’s a very strong idea here. I could not really improve on it, although the sections are short I think these are capturing the direct speech in this kind of act, so I could not really improve on this part, you could add more links in the prose and not in the title!
- Sixth section: this kind of reads like a subsection of the previous one, where the speaker has closed and is starting up again; I would create a subsection here. I would not do anything to the prose of this though; it looks right to me. Good use of links to allude to different thing and optional jokes that might be used here.
- Seventh section: you capture the desperation very well; the full caps text and the long alrighty give the real sense of the whole thing falling apart. I like the tomato picture. I think because he's being abusive about the crowd you could have security guards chuck him out, there could be pathos of him being turfed out and still performing despite such rejection, this might ruin it though. To be honest I would not make any drastic changes, its really great stuff (It was one of my favorite PLS entry’s).
|
| Concept:
|
8
|
Very good indeed, the two sided element of having the article as an observation comedy about observational comedy is brilliant. It breaks the mold well and it uses all the right conventions of speech (I would tweak the pauses and questions a little though). I would normally be pretty critical of the first person articles, but I like this one a lot and has really good concept. You could give him a name though - so as to have it a little closer rather than the detached style of his character.
|
| Prose and formatting:
|
7.5
|
No major complaints here. The images aren't too great, but I'll go into this more. The prose is superb, you really capture the hater well and it’s very easy to imagine it all going off as you read it. I brought up the links in the section titles - I don't like these too much, they just look a little messy. More speech conventions here and there (nothing too major though). I would align right so as to have a greater flow and more tidy look, it'll hopefully bring out the prose more. I thought it could have more links, you seem to have quite a few in some places and be quite bare in others - I'm a strong advocate of the lightsbaer look. Otherwise no major complaints.
|
| Images:
|
6
|
Repetition for me looks a off, I would have the same guy but different angles so as to give a sense of progression, the progression of the text is lacking in the images. I like the last one it's nice and simple and all the captions are funny - he looks kind of hapless as well which is good.
|
| Miscellaneous:
|
7.5
|
Very good indeed. Although I think it has a few flaws I would vote very for on this if t were in VFH - this is quite good because according to Cajek I always vote against.
|
| Final Score:
|
36.7
|
Although it easier o go more in depth with very flawed articles it can be difficult to really add too much to very good one, Al lot of what I've brought up is very minor. I hope this has helped, should you need anything, just leave a note on my talk page;)
|
| Reviewer:
|
— Sir Sycamore (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
|
