Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Tombstone
Tombstone[edit source]
Tombstone was an article title given me in Happymonkey's writing contest. It creeped me out for a half a day, and then I got into the swing of writing the page. Thank you for taking this. Aleister 00:47 5 8
| Humour: | 8 | This is a pretty damn good article Aleister, yet another future-feature for you I'd expect. Still, there are a couple of things that niggled at me when I read it. Little things that would probably defer my vote if it did go up for VFH. Generally speaking, it starts really well but veers off towards the end. Although it's pretty funny throughout, the last couple of sections feel rushed and rambling. The opening paragraph, for instance, is great. I love the way you talk about tombstones in a very clinical way, making out like the only reason they exist is so people don't forget where they buried their loved ones (which I guess is true), which contrasts nicely with the usual sacred treatment they get.
After that, the history section is perfect. It's the same approach you used in Rolex, where you talk about something quite mundane in a wonderfully weird and insightful way, only here you do it much better. The idea of the relatives of those buried in the Valley of the Kings not being able to visit because of all the tourists is inspired. The section on where tombstones gather is also good, continuing the style and tone from the previous sections. The only revision I'd suggest you make is to cut the Princess Dianna line. I didn't see the point of it, or even understand it, really. Why is she on a fairy-tale island? You don't even have to mention why they're called cemeteries if you don't know, or can't think of a funny reason, just continue without such distractions. From then on you have a real habit of rambling. Sometimes this pays off and I like the very strange way you have of describing things (eg. tombstones are as heavy as two or three people) but sometimes you go too far. I reckon there are a couple of things here you could trim to keep the article more succinct. The paragraph on the cemetery of the abnormal, for instance, doesn't add much and isn't that funny. The rest of the section on famous tombstones is great, but I think you go on just a little bit too long and I started to want to skip ahead whenever I read that bit. It's the least funny and most rambling of those sections (also it's not a particularly famous tombstone) so I say cut it. Get rid of the witch section too. It feels like a bit of a random divergence from an otherwise informative and satirical article. It also didn't have many laughs. If you desperately want to keep it, I would shorten it significantly (maybe just keep the bit about the naked witch) and insert it into the section about creepy graveyard stories. It could probably work like this, as a brief joke in another part of the article, but for a whole section it's too much, and again I wanted to skip ahead. The last text section, euphemisms, could also do with a bit of trimming. I don't think you need to explain what a euphemism is, for instance. I like the ridiculous euphemisms for tombstones, but the more absurd ones (like the two birds in the bush one) should go at the end. Revise the list so the more believeable/realistic ones are first, and then have it slowly get sillier and sillier. If you make it build slowly like this, the reader will be more inclined to accept the absurd lies you're telling. It will also be funnier if it follows this pattern. I'm not sure why, but it will. I know it will. Now for the video, I'm torn. On the one hand, I see it as un-encyclopaedic and totally out of place. It makes the end of the article look really scruffy too. It probably sounds conservative, but I alway react to videos in articles with angry sighs. Whether you care what I think or not, a lot of the other users will probably feel the same way. Do what you want of course, just something to think about if it's ever up for VFH. On the other hand though, it is a funny video (though it doesn't bear a second viewing). One idea would be to put an external link to it at the end of the article. |
| Concept: | 9 | You don't really have much of a concept, I guess. It's just a funny article about tombstones. As I say above, the very matter-of-fact tone is one of the article's strongest points, it's almost like your disparaging a bizarre human practice, but without resorting to unintelligent insults. This is the kind of thing you should be focussing on, and most of the stuff I tell you to remove above are the things that don't fit in with this. The witch section and the references to the cemetery of the abnormal use a more silly/surreal kind of concept, and although they're well written, with the rest of the article in mind they stick out like a sore thumb. Try to keep it realistic, cynical - that's where this article hits its peaks. |
| Prose and formatting: | 7 | There were lots of spelling/grammar errors, but I pretty much corrected them all myself. One thing you should learn though: you don't need an aprostrophe when you pluralise something (I have five dog's - wrong), only if you're shortening a word (don't take away my five dogs - right) or describing ownership of something (ok, they're not mine, they're my mother's dogs - right). You might already know all this but I thought I'd go through it anyway as there were quite a few mistakes of this nature.
Another potential problem is the way you continually interrupt the prose with little asides (eg. no-longer-mum-and-dad (they're so lifelike!)). A lot of these bits where you make an observation in brackets are really funny, but some, I feel would work better as footnotes. The article is loaded with so much, so many layers, that it becomes hard to follow. It's nice to have so much content, but don't be afraid to use footnotes instead. One example is the "passing away" one, where you liken it to passing gas. This really gets in the way of what you're trying to say, and I had to go back and read it a few times. If you don't want to make this a footnote, how about rearranging it so it's at the end of the sentence and not halfway through? This might help with others too, just so they're not breaking the flow. Then there was another bit that confused me: "I'd rather be in Philadelphia" - not sure what you meant by that at first. I can now tell it's supposed to be an example epitaph. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's nice and subtle, but I think you need to make it clearer as it's a little awkward. A simple colon (:) between the epitaph and the previous sentence might do the trick, just so we know you're giving us an example without having to re-read the whole thing. The only other little bit I seem to remember sounding awkward was the bit where you say the guest of honour has been "dumped and emptied". What do you mean by "emptied"? "Dumped" I understand, but "emptied"... Are you sure you mean this? The second paragraph of the intro seems messy. What's with all the quotation marks? Are you trying to imply they're not really dead or something? I wasn't sure. Or were you highlighting the words which mean "someone is not having a good day"? Either way I think this part could do with a clean up. On a formatting note, are you going to remove the happy monkey template? It doesn't really suit the grim tone of the article. Also, telling people not to edit it seems against the nature of the site (and will be about as effective as a big red button saying "don't press this big red button"). Along with the video it only serves to make the whole thing look scruffy. And lastly, this is where - in my younger days - I'd have berated you for the bold captions. The weird thing is, they're actually starting to look normal to me now. I must be losing it. |
| Images: | 6.5 | The first image I like. I always prefer a photographically-good image for the opener, just to set the scene, and you've chosen well. The caption isn't so perfect, in fact I wasn't really sure what you meant by it. The bit about a "new crop of tombstones" was kind of funny, but the little exchange between... whoever that's meant to be (?), was puzzling.
The image of the tombstone in the cemetery of the abnormal isn't so good. I like how weird it is, but I don't understand what the hell it's meant to be. I'd get rid of it and replace it with the pyramid image, which would make more sense in this section given that you actually talk about pyramids here. Also, I really liked that picture. The Mr Winkler one could do with some work on the caption. I like the stuff about not learning much about the deceased from tombstones, but the whole in-jokey nature of it ruins this. Perhaps trim the start, as the caption is a bit long. Just mention that the sculptor is vengeful and that you don't learn a whole lot from these things. This will be more focussed. |
| Miscellaneous: | 8 | An 8 here, generated by my gut feeling. Especially since an average would have given you a lower score than I think you deserve. |
| Final Score: | 38.5 | So to sum up, a great article only slightly hindered by a lack of focus and some general messiness. One of the best I've read by you for a while, though, so well done. Now if you sort out the problems I discuss, I think this could be a stupendously good article. But whatever you choose to do (I know from collaborating on Marilyn Monroe that you tend to ignore other people's demands, and that's usually for the best), good luck, and I hope I've been of help. If you want me to look at any changes or clarify anything else about the review, let me know. |
| Reviewer: | --Black Flamingo 12:59, August 7, 2010 (UTC) | |