Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Sidney Poitier
Sidney Poitier[edit source]
I think it is my best work yet! (that's not saying much) Omnifluff 21:10, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
- I'll give a go at this shortly, mon. Though I need a nap first, methinks... damn, I'm tired. But yeah. ~
05:34, 11 February 2011
| Concept The idea, the angle, the grand funny of the article...
| |
| Okay, I'll be honest - I'd never even heard of the guy before. In fact, I'm all around pretty damn clueless when it comes to films in general, so if I'm completely missing points with this, realise that it doesn't necessarily mean others will. On the other hand, it may also mean others will indeed miss them as well, so clarification might be in order, anyhow. It'd be something to consider, at any rate.
Anyhow, reading from the beginning, he never gave up on his dream... what dream was that? And the struggle for equality interfered? That's how it's seeming, anyhow, and the dream bit also seems very important, yet it doesn't actually play that out. A few mentions, but not terribly important to the piece as a whole. In fact, you don't really play anything out that much - what is the overall funny here? He's black, then he's poor, then he keeps nearly failing, then he gets rich - all good pieces played out pretty well, but pieces of what, exactly? I'm not seeing what the big picture is, either, the angle from which you are approaching the fellow which makes him overall hilarious. If you can bring that up from the start, introduce it in the introduction (perhaps it is the dream?) and support it, expand upon it, and really play it out throughout the article, each section being a piece of it, the article would come across a lot stronger than it is. You also have some continuity issues - making jokes is all very well and fine, but they tend to come out better if not contradicted later in the article. The bit about how he enriched the lives of at least two people is an amusing twist, but it just doesn't make sense with what comes later, you know? Read through it and then reread through it and you should be able to catch these kinds of things and deal with them however you choose. Make them make sense within the constraints of the piece, at least. You should also be careful with things like abuse - it's everywhere, and not actually inherently that funny. Is that it apparently lasted three years and you are calling it many the funny? Or did the abuse start earlier? And why did it? How did it manifest? That could be a funny, itself. Plenty of silly things that can be abusive, but also consider the time - what is abuse now wasn't necessarily then. Mentioning more of the hows of things could help in a lot of places, though. Not only do details potentially add to the funny, but they can make it make more sense - how did he get a role in a porno in the first place? How did he get the lead in the next thing? How did he fund his stint drugged out in his beach house? How did he become a director, after the whole being arrested thing? Was directing part of his retirement? Why was he using psuedonyms? And if this is an article on the guy, why does it not know how many he directed? The 'somewhere between' just damages the credibility of the piece, in my view. Could also use at least some mention of the others, overall how his directing was, did it improve over time, any particularly bad ones, that kind of thing. Also, the ending seems kind of weak, namely the death section - blinking out of existence because everyone forgot he was alive? That doesn't even make sense, if he was a star as it says, and also clashes with the more sensible (or perhaps less random) rest of it. Saying that he was forgotten and died alone would be one thing, but that's too much, at least for me. Not to mention the very next sentence says he is remembered... and now you're also bringing up the whole dreams thing, again - fits with the introduction and very little of the body. Try to make it fit with the body more (or perhaps have the body fit more with that?) and it'll probably make for a stronger ending. | |
| Humour The implementation, how funny the article comes out...
| |
| Though I'd question the taste of some of them, that's probably just me. Your jokes do tend to be pretty good; mostly more of an issue of sensibility between them, if that makes any sense. Work on the piece as a whole and try to have more of them support whatever your overall point is and that should help, though. | |
| Prose and formatting Appearance, flow, overall presentation...
| |
| Why do you have the first image set up as if in an infobox for only three pieces of information? It doesn't really add anything humour-wise, and the information itself could just as easily be presented in the introduction (and the actor bit already is, at that). I know infoboxes are fairly wikipedic, but unless you have enough funny stuff to put in them, there's really not much point in using the things at all.
As for the rest of it, grammar's pretty decent - could use a proofreading, please don't use commas when saying what things are called (called 'All in the Family' would be a better way to do it, although the italics are probably enough even without single quotes), a few other issues I didn't write down and subsequently forgot - but overall pretty good. The sections are titled a little oddly, not inherently a bad thing, but they stand out. Are these allusions to his thingies, or quotes, or some such? Why not make all of them headers such allusions, if they are? Although if those are the titles of the actual pieces, perhaps you should refer to them in the sections by those titles as well? As it is they just seem random. Generally you do want your sections to fit what they're titled; that's what titles are for, after all. | |
| Images The graphics themselves, as well as their humour and relevance...
| |
| You know, these aren't bad images... but why are the middle ones so tiny, eh? Can't even make out the dinner scene, and it is a much larger image, so why not put that to use, mon? If it's controversial, what's so controversial? Part of that is just the smallness, but you could also make a comment about just what is so controversial in the caption, mocking how things have changed, maybe. Could be a decent place for more of a joke, though. But it'd really help if we could see what's happening.
As for the other captions, why would the guy be reading his own article if he is indeed already dead? That doesn't really make sense, nevermind that the image isn't of him reading, anyhow. But you'll usually want to steer away from such self-reference in general, anyhow; unless the entire point of an article is self-referential humour (and sometimes even then), it can be quite dangerous. And it really is not encyclopedic. And the bumkin poster, where's a funny caption for that, eh? It's just a poster as it is, illustrating the section, but could it not be more of a joke? Some dry comment about reactions to the posters, something about advertising in general, something about just the poster... something, mon. As it is, it's pretty much just there. Same with the last one, really. His most memorable role? What was memorable about it? As with every line, every image is an opportunity to make further jokes, or emphasise the main joke of the piece, and while you may actually have something with this one, I'm not getting it. Don't let them fade to just being there; have the images stand out as remarkable as well as support the piece. | |
| Miscellaneous Anything else... or not...
| |
| Gut feeling, I reckon. Spit and polish? Or polish and spit... | |
| Final score ~
 20:06, 12 February 2011 | |
| Like I said, no idea who the guy actually is, and in the spirit of emulating the typical ignorant reader, I didn't go look at the Wikipedia page. Because they tend not to, the lazy bastards. But seriously, it is a pretty strong piece already. Reckon it mainly needs more of an overal joke and some tightening up, you know? If not, er... hit me with a 2x4 or something. I mean...
Er, good luck, at any rate. And sorry the review took so long. |
