Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Quinton flynn

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Quinton flynn

This is my first full article, and as proud as I am of it, I will be the first to say that it certainly isn't the best thing on the wiki. I still haven't figured out images yet, but that's not my biggest concern. My biggest concern with this article is that while I was writing it I was a little too focused on staying true to the subject matter, so it deals more with fact than humor. Facts are great and all, but I like to make people laugh.

"When you're my hieght living in a house made for midgets, you're likely to develope a severe fear of ceiling fans. 13:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)" Professorninja.

PRIP EXPIRED Though Hyperbole reserved this Pee Review, he/she/it/Abominable Snowman has not yet completed it. You may claim the review by replacing his/her/its/Abominable Snowman's name with yours.

Humour:	4	Okay, first a word on the concept. I see the article title, and I think, "Who?" Then I open up the article, and I see that Flynn has 28 friends on Facebook. Right now, most Uncyclopedians are thinking: "I don't know who this guy is, I'm sure Codeine's mum doesn't know who this guy is, and most likely this is some loser friend of the author; I'm inclined to delete this page." Adding the {{wikipedia}} template might help you with that, but there's a fundamental problem here: Uncyclopedia has different standards of notability than Wikipedia. An article like Dubiotech is notable enough for Wikipedia, because, hey, it's going to be a massive building when it's done. It's not notable enough for Uncyclopedia, because, frankly, the attitude about Dubiotech around here is that nobody cares. And I think this article runs up against the same problem with Flynn - he's barely a notable voice actor even by the very, very low standards of voice actors. Honestly? This might be an impossible article to write. Okay, let's look at the sections: Lede: 4. While it does tell us what the piece is about, it really isn't funny. "His life is full of many great adventures" is borderline - a bit of a chuckle, but also a classic warning sign that some bad writing may follow. The section is really probably too short to be a lede. Early Life: 4. There are no jokes here. No punchline. It's all setup. Generally speaking, every section should deliver even a small amount of comedy payload. Failing in Theatre: 5. The only joke here is that Flynn was mistaken for a Beatle despite not looking like one. Well, okay. That merits maybe a small internal smile. The rest of the section is more setup - and it's not even related to the prior setup. What happened to the Japanese stuff? How did we get transported to the other island full of people with bad teeth? Rebirth of the Dream: 3. It's my opinion that screwing with dates doesn't make articles funnier; it just makes them worse. Flynn wasn't 17 in 1994 - he was 30. Walt Disney had been dead for 28 years. Aladdin wasn't a 1994 movie - it was in 1992. Sure, you're talking about the TV series, but no casual reader is going to get that. So the section is just going to leave readers screwing up their faces and wondering: what do these numbers mean? Is there a Michael Eisner joke buried in here somewhere? Why does Disney "disappear"? Is this commentary on Disney films getting progressively crappier and their public image being so badly sullied? I don't really know what's going on in this section. History: 5. I did smile when the article admonished me for skipping down to this section, as though anyone would possibly do that. Good use of the fourth wall. Otherwise, though, this is kind of a weak payoff for a joke that an entire section was dedicated to setting up. Past Roles/ Current Roles: 3. Yeah, this is pretty much listcruft. Now, granted, it's not idiotic listcruft - there are reasons for these things to be on the lists - but structuring an article this way almost never works. It sets up an impossible task for the writer - let's take 40 things for which I have no preconceived ideas about how to make a joke out of them, and try to say something funny about each one. Those attempts almost always fail, and readers, knowing this, usually just skip over the lists. The best strategy here would be to take the cream of the crop and present it in paragraph form.
Concept:	3	Uncyclopedia is, in a broad sense, a comedy wiki - but the vast majority of the comedy here is based on satire. And to satirize something, people have to be familiar with it. Which isn't to say that "Quinton Flynn" is a completely impossible subject for an article, but really, a successful attempt is going to have to satirize something broader than just Flynn himself. The whole concept of being a professional voice actor, perhaps? More jokes about MGS, Disney, or the country of Japan? Jokes about articles that present non-notable people? I mean, those are all things that most of us are familiar with. Flynn isn't.
Prose and formatting:	6	Not bad. The prose isn't dripping with eloquence, but it's competent. There are a few typos in there, but that's forgivable. You might want to try writing in Firefox, which has a built in spell-checker. The formatting isn't awful, but it isn't great. For one thing, many of the sections are far too short. The lede is too short, and the lists of 16 roles blow the TOC up into mammoth proportions. If you insist that these roles must exist as a list, you might want to simply bold the section headers, like this, instead of using section breaks - at least that would keep them out of the TOC. Also, it's important to put categories at the end of the article; it looks like it ends very abruptly without them. Also, it's not a good idea to end with a list - most articles should have some kind of "punchline," conclusion, or at the very least, a logical and satisfying ending point.
Images:	2.33	Weird score, eh? Some reviewers give "0" if the article has no pictures. I average the previous scores, and then subtract 2 if I think the article needs a picture. I think this article needs a picture. Really, almost all of them do; there are exceptions, maybe, but they're very rare. Even just slapping up a picture of Flynn would be better than nothing, especially if the caption was funny.
Miscellaneous:	3.83	Averaged.
Final Score:	19.16	Welcome to Uncyclopedia! No, this isn't a great score, but I do think your work shows potential. You can write competently - a big plus; you have a desire to tackle articles that aren't about poop-flinging laser cheetahs; you didn't include any in-jokes, gay jokes, scat jokes, or utter randomness; honestly, for a first article, this is pretty damn good. So, let's see. We usually tell new writers to read HTBFANJS, but honestly, that's mostly about what not to do, and you're not doing those things. You should, however, spend some time on Uncyclopedia:Best of - see what other people in the community have found funny. Get some ideas for your own work. Get a sense of the ethos around here. And most importantly, there are a few good laughs in there, too. Good luck!
Reviewer:	Hyperbole 01:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)