Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnBooks:The sad fate of the banned users who escaped into a Sock puppet
UnBooks:The sad fate of the banned users who escaped into a Sock puppet[edit source]
Proxima Centauri 18:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest presenting this in UnBook format, getting rid of 2 out of the 3 Jailed1.jpg's, changing all of the "barst*ds" to either "bastards" or "@#$%^&*!!"(or something of the like), and doing a quick spelling and grammar check before this gets pee reviewed. I like the concept, though.--PaddyAtkinson 23:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
|
A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article is being reviewed by: UU - natter  (While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead). (Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole). |
It's been here long enough. *rolls up sleeves* --UU - natter 11:17, Dec 21
| Humour: | 5 | Hi there Proxima, I do recall you asking me to give you some opinions on this ages ago, and quite unforgivably I've totally not done so. At the same time, it's been sitting on the Pee queue for a couple of months now with only Paddy's comments above to give you anything to work with. Now, there is a reason for this, I think, and it's because this is a bit of a tricky one to review. I'm struggling to find a way to put this, and I think it's in part because you've obviously put so much work into this and I really hate to be negative when I see that. But on the other hand, I also hate to give people an inflated score for effort, so here goes:
The problem we have here is that there's a large element of in-jokery around this. It's hard to get away from, anything written about the day-to-day workings of the wiki are only going to be recognisable to other users, and new readers are likely to be baffled. You link to a couple of other articles at the bottom that do a similar thing and got featured, so you may wonder why I'm flagging this up as an issue, but here you don't explain it so well - those articles are more approachable because they explain things in a way that allow people to understand what's going on a little more. Here, you almost take it for granted they know what you're on about. To put it another way, you tend to do something I see in a few articles, where part of the article remains in your head, and you make leaps of logic from section to section, thinking that if you understand it and follow it, others will too - but that's not always the case. Fill in the gaps more, have fun with the prose. Perhaps go the other way, and over-patronise the reader in an obviously comedic way - explain every concept for the terminally hard of thinking. I hope this makes sense. For more specific examples, the intro could be longer and more explanatory, and so could the intros to each "part". That might help it a little. Also, this does feel quite listy - you have a lot of short paragraphs of one or two sentences and several lists - there's very few sections where you stretch out and allow this to breathe with more prose - it feels like being hit in the face with a lot of short, sharp jabs. What you need to do is let the thing flow a little more - it keeps stopping and starting. Look at the articles you link to at the bottom there - notice how they have more consistent paragraph lengths? More explanation? More prose? Fewer UN:LISTlists? They're more fun to read, and it really helps with the enjoyment. It also helps make them feel more approachable. Thing is, I do kind of like what you're trying to do here, I really do. But I think your execution lets it down. No sooner do you latch on to an idea than you discard it to move on to the next one. The only time you try to settle down with one for any time is the teacher and nursie section, and that still feels rushed. I like the contrast between the part one and two, I like the ideas in general, and there are some decent lines here and there. I'm fond of the idea of never being rehabilitated, and the childishness of part 2 works quite well as well. Part 3 is pretty much pointless though - it's overkill, it's not needed, it feels unnecessary. Possibly describe the sinking feeling that occurs when people discover the subterfuge. The denial, the attempts at self-justification, the considering of different options, that sort of thing. I just don't think this is a strong section, largely because it's not much of an original part of the article. |
| Concept: | 7 | A little in-jokey, but a workable idea if you get it right. It needs more attention to the detail, and work on the prose to really shine. You are starting with a disadvantage due to the injokey nature, but other articles have shown it can be done. I'm not suggesting you recycle their ideas, just that you need to think about making this more approachable and letting it flow more. |
| Prose and formatting: | 5 | As I say, it's fractured a bit, the sections are too short and almost fragmented, they don't flow into each other, and the lists join in to make it feel quite disjointed. You do have a coherent idea, I think, but you need to spend more time making it feel like one.
I also don't like the inconsistency of having some words censored and yet others not. "Fucked up" is fine, but "mother f***ers" and "barst*ds" and so forth aren't? Feels odd. As does some of the language. Stuff such as "excape teh blockie" and the like undermine the article - such stuff is fine in character for the users, particularly the kids, but the main body of the prose, starting as it does with "We hope most Uncyclopedians are well behaved", sets itself up as some kind of officious document, and so more correct language is fitting, and would help create more of a feeling of being disapproving of the offenders. Consistency with your work is the key here - establishing voices for both the body text and the characters helps create a better overall "feel", which in turn helps people enjoy the article more. Finally, it's an UnBook, so where's the UnBooks template? |
| Images: | 5 | Plenty, so points there. However, they're not that well used, and help to detract from the article, for a couple of reasons.
Firstly there are actually too many, and they're dotted about a bit too much, and too small - this combines with the fractured prose and lists to create the feel of a disjointed, kinda messy article. I'd guess not too many people are going to want to read this because of that. Secondly, they're not all relevant, which looks odd. What is the point of the smoking monkey? OK, it fits with the line the boy writes, but not with the overall article, and I think it creates more confusion rather than illustrating the article. Similarly whatever the point of the air guitar image is it is totally lost on me. Thirdly, you re-use the ban image of the cell window three times, including the ban message. No need. Fourthly, some are in different formats (ie not thumbs, with outlines and captions) - again, looks messy and disjointed. So, easy to sort this out. Prune un-necessary images as mentioned above. Make the remainder a bit larger, spread them more evenly, caption them all, and you should be in a much better position here. |
| Miscellaneous: | 5.5 | Averaged. |
| Final Score: | 27.5 | Rightyho, given that I work on the revolutionary concept that 25/50 = average, that's an above average article from my point of view. But it's hiding quite well behind off-putting formatting, fractured prose and too many pics. Some of that is easy to address, while the rest will take more work. Don't be disheartened, give it some more work and see where it gets you.
You mentioned VFH when you asked on my talk page - as you can see from the score, I think it's a way off that, but with work, could get closer. I honestly think that the two ban diary articles you link to would be a large strike against though - a lot of people will say "it's been done" regardless of the fact that it's a slightly different approach, so I don't know if it would ever do well unless it became an unmitigated work of genius, laughs spilling from every line and pore. But I've been wrong before. Finally, as always, this is only my opinion, others are available. And good luck! |
| Reviewer: | --UU - natter 12:22, Dec 21
| |