Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Pedobear (Second Review)
Pedobear [edit source]
This is a request for a second review of Pedobear. Thanks!
DAP Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 02:33, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. Give me a day. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 01:13, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Just finishing off now, running a few minutes late (in case anyone cares) --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 01:30, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
| Humour: | 6 | Right, I should start by telling you that I had never heard of Pedobear when I read this, so hopefully I should be able to give you an idea of how other people who are totally ignorant of internet memes will perceive your article.
The biggest problems here are lack of focus and awkward prose. However, I feel you shouldn't have much of a problem fixing either of these. Randomness/absurdity is a big issue, but I guess that comes hand in hand with a subject like Pedobear. Throughout this review, I will mostly be advising you on how to pull focus and maybe trim some of the flab. A key example of the article's lack of focus is the amount of unecessary divergences from the subject matter. The Beginning for instance jumps around too much and introduces a lot of information very quickly. As a result it was difficult to tell what was going on. Cut down on distractions like Presidential cameos, references to the KKK and Sailor Scouts etc, and just focus on the character of the bear, and the basics of his biography. Remember, the point of the article is to tell the story of a paedophilic bear, not to flaunt contrived and irrelevant jokes about Minnie Rae, The X-Files and Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. In other parts of the article, you elicit a lot of good humour from Pedobear's creepy endeavours and I would suggest you focus on this (the Maths section is a good example of this). I know it's been said before, but this article is way too long. But not to worry, I've always found it's good to write too much and then cut out the weaker parts. The article does become a chore to read, and if it wasn't for the fact that you have some really good bits in the second half (your stronger half, I think), it would have been a struggle for me to reach the end. Many of the sections, such as Mime and Seal of Approval, don't add anything and should probably be deleted. Others, like the School and Scouting ones could also do with trimming. For example, much of the satire about physical education would be good in an article about physical education, but not here. As for Scouting, I think you should focus on the fact that Pedobear is very obviously creating an outlet for his perversions, all the while being perceived as innocent and wholesome by the general public. Expand these parts as they are by far the best thing you do in the article, and get rid of anything that doesn't contribute to this (oh yeah, the video should go, as this is meant to be a writing and image-based website. Plus, the providers have blocked the content). An interesting thing I noticed with your article, is that it was got funnier the more times I read it. I think this is because it took me a few reads to get over the rather bizarre subject matter. I guess the ultimate problem is that the subject matter seems very far-fetched overall. The idea that a bear lived so long and did all these amazing things just doesn't hold up for me. Something you could do to counteract this is to further establish in the opening paragraph who Pedobear is. You need to dispel any thoughts in the reader's mind that this is nonsense (which at first glance, it seems to be). Perhaps make it clear in the first few lines that Pedobear was, for a long time, mistaken for a human. I really think you would also benefit from starting with something more encyclopaedic and dry like: "Pedobear is an international celebrity and cultural icon, noted for being one of the most famous bears in history". |
| Concept: | 6 | Personally, I think Pedobear as a concept is inherently flawed. It's too strange and too silly, thus making it hard to write something truly original and funny about. Having said that, you actually do a wonderful job of this, and you successfully avoid all the usual traps that writing about internet memes entails.
To bring up focus again, I feel you need to concentrate wholly on the irony that Pedobear's actions are quite twisted but no one seems to notice and he ends up being embraced for them. The Maths and TV career sections do this well. As I've said, try to cut down on the bits that don't have anything to do with your topic. Pedobear is such an odd character himself that he needs a very solid grounding in reality to work, references to Santa and Jesus only detract from this. If I was to suggest changes in your characterisation of Pedobear, I would note that you could possibly ditch a few of his more bizarre attributes to make him feel less far-fetched. His unaturally long life, for example, or the somewhat unbelievable assumption that he is a man in a bear suit. Of course, this is totally up to you. I am only trying to make suggestions, if you think they could work; great, if not; feel free to disregard them. |
| Prose and formatting: | 5 | Your prose is ok but could do with a thorough check. Although there are very few spelling and grammar problems, a lot of your sentences are badly structured, and many jokes don't pay off as well as they could because of this. In the opening for example, phrases like: "the world's favourite stuffed cuddling toy the pedobear" are clunky. Try using as fewer words as possible, don't overcomplicate things.
Another problem you have is with clarity. Instead of saying: "Pedobear was not the first Eagle Scout, the highest achievement possible in the organization, who was recognized in 1912", which doesn't make much sense, try something like: "Pedobear became an Eagle Scout - the highest scouting achievement - in 1912. Consequently, he was not the first to receive this award. (and so on)". There were several sentences like this, another being: "Ironically, as Bond like everyone else at the time believed Pedobear to be a human in a bear suit, the fictional Paddington is a real bear". What exactly do you mean by this? I wasn't sure. Something else I noticed was your sentence structure. It gets a bit untidy, and you seem to end many of your sentences in random places. You probably already know this, but when proofreading, keep in mind that you shouldn't end a sentence until you're finished making that point, and don't introduce a new point in the middle of another sentence. Those are the main problems, but there are just a few other things that could do with a tidy up in regards to prose/spelling/grammar:
|
| Images: | 6 | The images aren't bad, they are well placed and generally support your writing. However, none of them are massively funny. The one of Disney drawing him is good, as is the last one; the timeline one. But most of the others don't really add anything, and I would recommend getting rid of a few (the Santa and Alice in Wonderland ones to be exact). I'm pretty bad at finding good images myself, so can't really suggest anything specific other than a mass search of the interweb until something catches your eye.
One more thing - as I found myself eventually having to look up what this "teddy undergarment" thing was, due to lack of understanding, I thought perhaps a demonstrative image would help. Maybe it's an American term, I don't know, but whatever the case it may be possible to elicit some humour from such a picture. |
| Miscellaneous: | 5.8 | Averaged score. One other point I just remembered: Footnotes - too many! Some could do with deleting all together (refer to my notes on random divergences), while others would work better in the main flow of the text. Go back and re-examine them, and have a think about it. |
| Final Score: | 28.8 | It's obvious you have worked really hard with this, and I do have to congratulate you - it's surprisingly good. Don't pay too much attention to all those ugly yellowy numbers, I find they can say very little about an article's overall quality. They're really more of a guide to what you should do next, rather than a rating. As I've said, with a topic like Pedobear this was never going to be easy to write (or review for that matter). Your dedication so far makes me confident that you will be able to improve this piece, based on my suggestions or otherwise. Please feel free to pop over to my talk page if there's anything else. |
| Reviewer: | --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 01:50, February 3, 2010 (UTC) | |