Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnBooks:Jonathan Livingston Chicken

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

UnBooks:Jonathan Livingston Chicken

Worked long and hard on this one, probably my best effort yet, please be constructive and fix minor errors if possible. Thank you :) Sir ACROLO KUN • FPW • AOTM • FA •(SPAM) 11:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Sir ACROLO KUN • FPW • AOTM • FA •(SPAM) 11:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks very good but I haven't actually read the original. I'll do this review if no better reviewer comes along, or if you still can't find a reviewer that has actually read the original. --El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 12:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sid. Most of this article is a bit of everything tied in one: In the first section I parody the Penguin March thingy you know (Deep Morgan Freedman voice) And also basically the movie happy feet. The second section I parody alot of different movies involving the unlikely birth of a runt. In the 3rd section I parody mostly the Jonathan Livingston Seagull story in regards to his being different and unaccepted by others and at the same time happy feet once again where he dances and people don't like him much, but instead of not being able to sing he is unable to crow which links up to the gender sexual confusion theme in the article. I also bring a song into it too but a punkier song in order to parody the typical sad sing songyness that you find in most of these types of stories. Most of these concepts have all been linked into one story with a storyline and a punchline. Hope that explains it a little better :) Sir ACROLO KUN • FPW • AOTM • FA •(SPAM) 13:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds cool, what I like most is the concept itself, so - although I haven't actually read the book, nor have I seen any of the movies you reference (which is odd given how much I love penguins) - I would be keen on reviewing this as a worst case scenario for you, if noone else who gets the references comes along first. I also find chickens inherently funny, so that added to the whole concept being a well-chosen one for me. Keep me posted if no-one more able comes along in the next day or two :) --El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 13:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :D I will do! Sir ACROLO KUN • FPW • AOTM • FA •(SPAM) 13:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm here, a review is on the way. --ChiefjusticeDS 08:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dammi,t Cheif! I wanted this one! You leave no room guys like me to review. ~ Readmesoon 15:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	8	Right, your humour is pretty good and you have a good grasp of what you want to make funny in the article. There are however a couple of issues. The first is that ever present issue in many articles, that there is too much description and not enough funny. A couple of times while reading this one I felt it was a reasonable distance to the next joke. This is a fairly common difficulty, you have an excellent storyline and your execution is fine, the problem is people tend to arrive here, or tend to vote on VFH based on how much the article makes them laugh. Your article is certainly amusing but it isn't really laugh out loud hilarious. You should take a look at: Orian's featured UnBook for a good example of the amount of humour that tends to be firmly supported. You should make sure that besides the amusing premise for the article, there is plenty to laugh at in the text. The second problem is really evidenced by your discussion with Sid above this very review. You need to ask yourself, is this article accessible to absolutely anyone who may look at it. While you are not totally reliant on other material, which is superb, there should, ideally, not be a second dimension to the humour which you can access only with background knowledge. Fortunately this isn't a major difficulty and the article is perfectly enjoyable otherwise.
Concept:	9	I like the concept and you carry it off pretty well. You should be careful of losing your tonal consistency as it does vary sporadically a couple of times in the article. To remedy this, all you have to do is carefully read through your article, the places where you lose the tone should become obvious. I think the tone is pretty appropriate for this type of story and all you need to do is make sure it conforms all of the time.
Prose and formatting:	7	Your prose are pretty good, with only a couple of spelling and grammar difficulties. I would recommend the usual proofread to weed these out and make sure you don't have people voting against on VFH because the article looks unprofessional. You should also make sure that you have coherence in your story. Also make sure you finish sentences fully and construct them correctly. Perhaps I'm just being thick, but the ending is not that clear. I see, sort of, what you are getting at, but it just isn't clear enough. Consider fleshing out the explanations or including a plot summary. You also seem to race about the storyline faster than the reader can follow. Remember that while you know where you are going with your plot, a reader might not. Read the article carefully and as though it isn't your own work, can you follow it? Can you see anywhere where someone might not be able to? Be harsh with yourself and make sure the article doesn't make the reader do much intellectual leg-work. You have plenty of images and they break the text nicely.
Images:	10	I like your images and happily cannot find anything to criticise with them. You have chosen them intelligently and the book cover is excellently done. The only thing I would suggest is to increase the clarity on it if possible as it is slightly grainy as it is. This is cosmetic rather than essential and you should be pleased with the images.
Miscellaneous:	8	My overall grade of the article
Final Score:	42	This is a pretty good UnBook and it is obvious you have put some time and effort into it's creation. What you need to do now is sort everything else. There is plenty that can be done to make this article better. Sort the coherence, tone and some of the humour and you will have yourself a very solid article indeed. Good luck and well done.
Reviewer:	--ChiefjusticeDS 15:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)