Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/OhInternet
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
OhInternet[edit source]
-- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 20:12, April 22, 2011 (UTC)
| Humour: | 5 | The style of humour you have here is a little underdeveloped at present, at least in my opinion. You go for a fairly straight approach, which is all fine and dandy of course except for the fact that you don't actually have that much in the way of actual jokes. What you have, for the most part anyway, is a truthful rendition of what actually happened written in a varyingly informal tone. There is, however, a difference between telling jokes and just talking about something in an un-serious manner. The only humour technique you really utilise for laughs is the odd "cutting aside" to the reader, such as "which explains a lot when you think about it" and "i.e. about 99% of ED's content", and other little comments like that. A lot of these jokes are parenthetical - you can see them coming, often they're in brackets. The problem is, jokes like this have no flow and tend to be a bit predictable. Even if the content of the joke is funny you're unlikely to laugh because there's no set-up, and without a steady flow there's nothing to pull you in (you know how a really good string of jokes can drag you out of rational consciousness and into an ever-growing fit of hysteria?) Let me give you some examples of what I'm talking about. It's funnier to say "John Candy was a kind man, the size of his heart was comparable only to the size of his stomach" than it is to say "John Candy has a big heart (because he was fat)" - if you see what I mean? While not a hilarious example, I hope it demonstrates how unexpected twists and misdirection are far more successful techniques than just adding a humorous observation at the end of a sentence with no build-up. Although the repeated line "except if it attracts advertisers" is quite good; an exception to the rule, no doubt. |
| Concept: | 5 | Again, the main issue here is a lack of development. You have very little concept; the piece mostly reads like a genuine encyclopaedic entry but not quite as professionally written. At times it feels like a news piece, particularly towards the end with phrases like "the success of this venture remains to be seen". If you want to keep the style you have now, you're going to have to get more jokes in there (as I talk about above). A great article that takes an approach as similarly truthful as yours is this one, but its lack of "angle" and simple retelling of the facts doesn't make it any less hilarious. Note how nearly every sentence has a terrific punchline in there somewhere, this is the kind of joke-ratio you need to be aiming for with an approach like this. Alternatively you could develop more of an angle, the old "written in the style of that person" approach, for example. It's up to you of course, but either way the concept needs tightening. It probably needs expanding upon too - you don't really talk about what OhInternet does, instead focussing on what ED used to do that OhInternet doesn't. Generally, you talk about loads of things without every really explaining what they are, like this WhatPort thing, which I've never heard of. You could probably explain just about everything you mention in more detail, which would also help with the stubbiness of the piece if you did. |
| Prose and formatting: | 6 | At times the prose can be quite scruffy I'm afraid. Some of them are hard to follow, like this rather clunky incomplete sentence, "Add in the usual proliferation of ads that are prevalent with New Monaco formatting to the equation", which could probably do with a re-jig (I think the "in" is in the wrong place). I also don't know what you mean when you say it's a "secret addiction" of conservative over-25s, which would seem to contradict the following statement that conservative over-25s didn't like it. Others seem to break down without being finished, like this, "Second of all, imagine trying to explain internet memes to your mother, grandmother, or (worst of all) boss". Here, you don't explain why we're supposed to imagine it in the first place. You need to say something like "this is what OhInternet is like", or something to that effect. Another issue you seem to have is with punctuation; you use a lot more full stops than you ought to - this is particularly noticeable in the Safe for Work section. It makes it seem really jumpy and sloppily written. You need to take another look at the way you've written this, and check that it all makes sense.
The article as a whole feels a bit inconsistent too. The last section, for instance, seems to be a dump for every other idea you could think of whether they really went together or not. First you're talking about trolling a troll, then about advertisements - shouldn't these be separate sections? |
| Images: | 0 | There are none, so it's a zero here. Sorry. Part of what I was saying before about obscurity is relevant here - you could very easily clear up a lot of what you're talking about by illustrating it visually. Whatever the case you obviously need a few pics, preferably of the site(s), although it would be nice to see some diversity in the images, perhaps if you could find some of the people involved? I guess it's hard to illustrate an article about a website. |
| Miscellaneous: | 5.5 | Overall impressions. |
| Final Score: | 21.5 | In my opinion you've got a decent start here, it could just use some development. If you're going to stick with the straight approach you're going to have to get a lot more gags in there. Otherwise it might be worth finding an interesting angle to approach it from. You definitely need to get some images in there too. If there's anything I've said here that you want me to explain better, or if you want my opinion on anything I might have missed, please let me know on my talky page and I'll try to help. Keep up the good work and I hope the review is ok. |
| Reviewer: | --Black Flamingo 15:57, May 7, 2011 (UTC) | |