Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Sam Worthington
Sam Worthington[edit source]
Sam Worthington page, all in good fun, so forgive the harsh tone of some of the asides. Constructive criticism would be great, if anyone ever reads this.
CitizenKeane 17:43, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
|
This Falcon will no hesitate to peck out your eyes if you review this article. That is probably because PeregrineFalcon999 has booked it. You have been warned. |
Almost done the review. I'll finish it when I get home from school tomorrow. --
10:52, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
| Humour: | 5.0982 | Before I start, I'll give a brief rundown of what you're article is. It's basically just a half sporked Wikipedia article, except you've added lots and lots of little jokes in brackets, most of them pretty much summing up an opinion. This is not bad. It gives it an average bit of humor. A few chuckles, maybe, but nothing to send the reader rolling on the floor laughing.
The good things about your bracket styled article? You get to keep a consistent tone throughout. Also, you have found a good way to add jokes into your article without ruining the Wikipedia style you're aiming for here. And the bad thing? You can't expand your article - you can't make it any longer. Your article will get a couple of chuckles from the reader at this length, but if you choose to expand your article, you can do two things - you can continue your style or change it. Changing the style is bad. If you keep the style, you will truly run these jokes to their death and the reader will more than definitely not read the full article. It will just get too boring. And why is this all a problem? Because your article is short. Now, short articles can be funny. A wizard did it didn't get featured for nothing. (Well, actually it DID get featured for nothing, but let's not go into that!). But your article is a bit too short for the concept, when you can clearly do more with it. My advice? Keep your brackets. Keep your Wikipedia style. But change what the article says. You can be funny without being stupid. You can be funny while still keeping a Wikipedia tone. That's what you need to do here. How? First, think of some of the movies Sam's been in. Terminator Salvation, Avatar and Clash of the Titans are a few. And who has he played in these movies? A cyborg, a marine who turned into an alien, and a character from Greek mythology. You need to incorporate this stuff into your article to create something funny. Check out this article. Read the 'Childhood' section. This is funny, because the writer hasn't changed his Encyclopediac tone, but added some good stuff in. He played on the fact that Amerigo named everything after himself to add jokes without ruining the style of writing. You've got to play on YOUR guy’s attributions. This is the way to add completely random stuff to your article – but keeping it funny at the same time. This, I believe, is the main problem with your article. Usually in this humor section I would go through each section in the article, and give some basic comments, but I feel this subject is the only thing I should say here, as it applies to all sections. It is definitely the biggest thing that needs improving with your humor. |
| Concept: | 5.0712 | So, an actor. Not a overly fantastic concept. But one that has played parts in some of the most popular films - that's a good concept. Still, as I have detailed in the above section, you haven't used this concept quite to it's potential. That's why you need to expand it - and that's why you need to help out the style of writing and make it more interesting. |
| Prose and formatting: | 5.0872 | On the subject of formatting, your article looks good. In fact, it looks pretty much perfect. (Although you may want to add __NOTOC__ to your page and see how it looks without no contents bar). If this section was just formatting, I'd give it a '9' (only articles like Monster Party or Dragon Worrier could get a ten in my point of view). So the reason this score is low is because of your prose.
The main problem with your prose is all those brackets, as the rest of the article is well written (considered is was pretty much sporked from Wikipedia). As I've already said, you should merge some more stuff into the article to make it better. But even then, the brackets hurt your article. How? There are two problems... First, there are way too many of them. The bad thing about this is it can be really annoying for the reader, their read being constantly interjected by all these little opinion related sentences in brackets. It makes for a very broken article, and it doesn't flow. Which makes for hard reading. So, you've got to cut down on these. You can still have them as a common feature of the article, but allow at least a sentence and a half between each one, as there are about two very sentence. The second problem is the actual content of these interruptions. They're basically just very short comments written in a very colloquial (informal) way, expressing an opinion. Opnions can sometimes be funny, but they're not teh best way to express humor. The ideas here can stay, but the way you write them has to change. Try an approach these ideas in a factual way - instead of 'Whatta loser!' say - 'he was from then on considered a loser, and damn well should!' or something like that, anyway. |
| Images: | 8.4762 | Great pictures. Not much improvement to be made here, but you may like to get some pictures of scenes from the movies he was in, and add some funny captions. |
| Miscellaneous: | 6.2672 | My overall rating of the article. |
| Final Score: | 30 | Ah, 30. How I love the amazing work of decimals. You article is a solid one at the moment - an average piece of Uncyclopedia writing. Not overly funny, and but good enough to get a chuckle or two. A lot of the time you can't get much out of an article, but I know you can definitely make this much better, and I know how. Need a recap? Here are the main points you need to follow (in order)...
If you follow these points you article will increase in quality, and if you do your best this score could jump into the forties. This concept has potential, it's just the content needs a bit of work. I hoped I helped here! |
| Reviewer: | -- 05:45, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
| |