Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Pocari

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Pocari

Markochan 12:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	2	Okay! Let's break this down. The lede: 3. The thing about the lede is that there are no jokes in it. I guess it establishes the tone of the piece. I actually smiled a little when I saw that Pocari was defined as "like a cloud floating in the sky" or "a situation in which a cloud is floating in the sky"... and then I looked it up and realized that it's completely true and lifted directly from Wikipedia. So... hmm. Yeah, nothing intentionally funny here, anyway. Appearance: 2. This reads more like Sci-Fi than comedy. Why do I want to know the exact dimensions of the Pocari? What's funny about that? And saying they're related to smurfs, imho, is a big mistake - it takes us out of the real universe (which you're parodying by suggesting that Pocari Sweat is in fact the sweat of something that exists) and it puts us in a bizarre alternate universe in which no jokes can be successful because we don't know the rules. Finally, this is just way too short to be an article section. Flesh it out! Behavior: 2. Again - more dry details about a fictional animal. The only joke here is that someone would actually write those kinds of details about something so obviously fictional - but it's not that funny a joke. Habitat: 1. More of the same, and even shorter. Captivity: 3. After no fewer than four sections, we finally get to a little bit of satire: we finally see that the joke is that Pocari Sweat is the sweat of the Pocari. But then you say that the sweat is alcoholic - why? I've had Pocari Sweat many times, and the stuff has no alcohol in it. Then we have: it causes cancer and it tastes like antifreeze. Simply saying that the subject of an article sucks is an overused and generally unfunny technique. There is a little joke here that the Japanese will ingest anything that gives them cancer - a reference to their smoking habit? - and it's an okay joke. Not hilarious, but okay. Diet: 1. So after the tiny blip of satire, we go back to dry details about a fictional animal? Really? Infobox: 2. It's kind of a waste of time. The only thing amusing here is presenting its D&D stats as though they were biological facts. The rest of it, though, I just gloss over. If the article doesn't talk about the intelligence of the Pocari, why do I need to know that its intelligence is "above average"? I don't know if I'd advise taking it out, since it does make the article look more Wikipedian, and that's important, here. But if there's a way to funny it up, well, let's do that.
Concept:	6	There's really nothing wrong with the basic concept here, at all. The Japanese have a beverage with the absurd name "Pocari Sweat," so let's write about the Pocari. Sounds good to me. But there needs to be another angle - something *funny* about the Pocari. This could be (yet another) Uncyclopedia article that makes fun of Japanese culture - they're a dime a dozen, but I still enjoy them (after all, I'm one to talk, as the guy who wrote Japanese High Schools). Or you could use it to satirize something else - beverage corporations? Consumerism in general? Our addiction to unhealthy novelty foods?
Prose and formatting:	7	The prose is tight, consistent, and encyclopedic. My main complaint with the formatting is that the short sections make it a little ugly.
Images:	7	I think that's a great pic - at once adorable and disturbing. In other words, quintessentially Japanese. But I can guarantee that a second picture would improve the article. What you want is a pic of the Pocari actually doing something - being harvested for its sweat? If that's too tough a Photoshop job, well, lots of other things could possibly work, as well.
Miscellaneous:	0	I'm going to have to take the score down a bit, because, frankly, the article fails at the basic level of what an Uncyclopedia article is supposed to be: funny.
Final Score:	22	Honestly, this shows promise. It's coherent; it avoids all the lame, flat attempts at humor we see so often (juvenile humor, in-jokes, perplexing randomness, etc.); it has an amusing concept and suggests a knowledge of its subject. I'd really like to see this one improved. And improving it should be a simple matter: think of some funny things to write, and add them to the article. Good luck!
Reviewer:	Hyperbole 03:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)