Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Stargate Universe
Stargate Universe[edit source]
Bhind45 09:21, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
| Humour: | 5 | Ok, what you have here is a really decent effort, but as of right now it does feel like a bit of a first draft. I think I have a few ideas that might help anyway.
First of all, let's talk about Uncyclopedia clichés. The whoops joke you have here actually does kind of work (for a change), but it is a bit of a tired old joke that's been done many times before. I also think you could make the same joke in a much more successful way, by just being more subtle about it. I would rather you hint at the fact that the two shows are the same, rather than just writing in massive letters "this is a Battlestar Galactica rip off!" You could imply how similar it is in prose, for instance, by saying something like "Executive Producer John Smith got the inspiration for the show when looking at Battlestar Galactica's ratings". Not a hilarious line, but it has more care and depth to it than an average whoops gag. Same with the opening quotes really, they're usually a no no, although I have seen a few good ones here and there. These are a bit silly; Samuel L. Jackson and Willy Wonka have nothing to do with this, they could be anyone's names up there and it wouldn't be any more or less funny. The Star Trek: Voyager one is hinting at a good joke, but it's not subtle enough - again you may as well just write "Star Trek: Voyager and Stargate Universe are really similar!" in big letters. Another note on the intro while we're here, you'll need to mention the article title. You start sort of halfway through a sentence and never actually refer to it. Whack the title at the beginning in bold like in all our other articles, and then change it so it reads "is the latest instalment..." because you're making a statement about it here, and you need an "is". Another Uncyc cliché is the dreaded list. Some of the sections here, especially in the second half, are way too listy. While lists aren't always bad they don't usually get to grips with the humour of what you're talking about because they're rushed and lack flow. It tends to make jokes more predictable too (for some reason). 99.9% of the time, a big meaty section of well-thought out prose is better. These lists specifically, however, isn't that funny. I feel you're repeating yourself to be honest; just more jokes about there being lots of sex, and if you haven't seen a few episodes you're probably unlikely to get any of it. Our guide for writing for the site has some decent suggestions regarding things like this, and I would also recommend you read our supposed "best of" to see what tends to pass for humour around here. Note how very few of our best articles actually use the whoops jokes, opening quotes or references to Snakes on a Plane. I have a major problem with all the sex gags too I'm afraid. These parts aren't that funny as you're not really making jokes, you're just mentioning sex every now and then. Sex isn't funny if you just talk about it, although it can be funny to watch, you have to construct an actual gag. A A lot of the jokes are also about how ill-conceived or under-developed the premise is. These are a lot better but I think they'd benefit from being a bit more encyclopaedic. The colloquial language ruins it because again it sounds like a blunt attack rather than satire. But what you're talking about is generally amusing, so be a little drier and this should be a whole lot funnier. I especially like the jokes about how out-of-touch the network executives are, and think as a whole you should focus more on things like this (rather than sex jokes). The joke about the Stargate cooking show, for instance, is a decent idea but it needs cleaning up. Right now, it's a little confuddling and doesn't really sound plausible. You could also give it a lot more subtlety. I would suggest you try something like this: "In response, SyFy commissioned a new series of Stargate Universe, this time set entirely in the kitchen, and with all the old actors replaced by popular TV chefs." This is slightly funnier because it's drier and requires the reader to think about it a little more, rather than jut baldly telling them that the network wanted to merge the two shows. See what I mean? |
| Concept: | 6 | Well, the concept is ok, it's probably quite hard to make a subject like this funny because it's a bit esoteric and there are no obvious jokes to rely on (it's not as culturally ingrained as Star Trek, for instance). But I guess you have enough of an angle with the bits about sex, ratings-chasing and overall shittiness. I would recommend you focus it a little more though, so it feels like you have running gags about the same thing but told in different ways rather than just repeating yourself (you reuse the same link joke about 20 times, for example which looks a bit odd). I also feel the piece is a bit muddled on what the show actually is, at the beginning you describe it as a teen drama and a sex education show, although I don't get any hint of that from the rest of it. Consistency is an issue overall. You say it was cancelled because of low ratings, then you completely contradict yourself and say it was because it was too expensive. I mean, there's no reason there can't just be a number of reasons, right? You just need to amend your wording in place so it all matches up. |
| Prose and formatting: | 5 | Generally I think the tone is a little bitter. Saying things like "it's about shagging anything with a pulse" reads so negatively that it makes it look more like an outright attack than a piece of satire. I've already suggested a more encyclopaedic tone, so I won't repeat myself.
At times I also feel you're talking down to your reader too much. Look at this sentence: "they felt that it would be more profitable to air wrestling and cooking shows on a Sci-fi channel!" - I think you can lose the "on a sci-fi channel!" bit, that's kind of a given, and it ruins the joke by over explaining it. Everyone knows that the idea is silly without a comic exclamation shoved on the end. Some of your prose can be scruffy too, which clouds the meaning in places. In the intro for example, you say "this series was created following complaints from drunk perverts about the lack of sex between hollow characters along with internet scams related to homosexual relationships between shipmates in science-fiction TV shows" - and I'm not sure what you mean by this. Try clearing up the text as a whole; reading it aloud can usually give you a better idea of how it flows, so perhaps try this. Again, our featured articles are usually good examples of how to write in a clear, concise way. |
| Images: | 4 | There are a couple of problems here. First of all, they're all too small; I couldn't really make out any of them without opening them up on a new page. It also makes the page look rather ugly and full of white space. So make 'em big, spread them out, try to make it so there's an image in view at all times (or even in every section if possible).
Another thing is that they all look basically the same - probably due to the fact that they're mostly all screenshots. I would definitely try to vary them, get some pics of behind-the-scenes, promotional material, merchandise etc, etc. This will stop it from looking so dull. |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | A 6 for effort, and potential. |
| Final Score: | 26 | Overall, a great start. Work on developing those jokes and tidying up the prose and you'll have a fine article on your hands in no time. If there's anything I've said here that you want me to explain better, or if you want my opinion on anything I might have missed, or even if you're just lonely, please let me know on my talky page and I'll try to help. Keep up the good work and I hope the review is ok. |
| Reviewer: | --Black Flamingo 13:56, May 28, 2011 (UTC) | |