Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Potato Sack Races (2nd)
Potato Sack Races [edit source]
Good feedback the first time, but I wanted indepth to see how I could improve it. PLEASE INDEPTH! Thanks. Tagstit talk contribs awards 20:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh ya this is done by me, Staircase, and Sonje (pictures) Tagstit talk contribs awards 20:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
| Humour: | 4 | I normally like to discuss the concept of an article before the score, but the whole problem with this article is that there's a very low joke:text ratio. Something you should do when writing on Uncyclopedia is go through your article and try to identify to yourself the exact things that are supposed to make the reader laugh. Do that and tell me what you get, because maybe I'm missing something. What do we have here? The concept's amusing, sure. Something silly turned serious, just like HTBFANJS recommends. But you've got to follow up a funny concept with funny content, too.
I'm going to recommend The Phallic School of Architecture as a similar article that you should take a look at. It's encyclopedic, it writes seriously about something silly, and I could point out several individual things that are funny in and of themselves (but I won't for the sake of brevity and decency). I kind of want go give a section-by-section breakdown, but I don't really see the point because I'd end up saying the same thing about every section. It's all just exposition. The lead had me thinking, "okay, that's not really funny but it introduces the subject". The "History and Development" section had me thinking, "well that was tiresome, but hopefully this background info is just a setup for some jokes later on". It tells a story, yes, but it just comes out looking like a bunch of lies with no jokes mixed in. That's not to say there's not potential. When talking about the harsh training, you could say something about how the Chinese try to enter competitors who are too young and lie about their age. Drawing parallels to real stuff is good. Just be sure that it's funny. |
| Concept: | 7 | I do think this is a good idea, but that doesn't mean it's going to be easy. You're writing seriously about something silly, but you have to let the silliness slip once in a while. Take Fire Hydrant, for example. It writes seriously about a fire hydrant's life, but at the end it brings us back forcefully to the fact that we're reading about the life and times of a fire hydrant. You're not writing for |
| Prose and formatting: | 5 | Your paragraphs ran a little long, creating a sort of a dreary, spirit-draining wall of text at first glance. Break it up a little, and throw in some {{cquote}}s or something so it doesn't look like a legal document or a policy page. There were also some minor punctuation errors. |
| Images: | 9 | Sonje. The only reason I've not giving you a 10 is because the first image looks kind of like a puzzle piece, and not as sleek logos you see for real sports associations. |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | What does that mean "especially in the male division due to its light-hearted ease and individual passion shown"? I like my women with light-hearted ease and passion too. |
| Final Score: | 31 | Although it can be annoying to get short reviews when you ask for in-depth, they can be useful if you know how to read them. TnIir didn't use a lot of words, but it looks like he did try to politely say that it wasn't that funny. Also, newbies will inflate their scores so they don't hurt their feelings.
I think you can improve this one if you tried. Just have a crack at it. Sorry you had to wait so long. |
| Reviewer: | --C:\syndrome\_ 20:27, September 15, 2009 (UTC) | |