Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnNews:COCKS embraced: Lawsuit filed against Cedric the Entertainer

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

UnNews:COCKS embraced: Lawsuit filed against Cedric the Entertainer

This is the second go round for this one.- Cheapinitreal (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Second review coming up Cheap! But it probably won't be done for one or two days. Hope you can live with that! :-) - [18:53 3 June] Sir FSt. Don Pleb Yettie (talk) QotF BFF NotM RotM UNPotM UGotM CUN PEE SR UnProvise

Not a problem YTTE. Thanks for taking a second look. I haven't had much time for new stuff with the wedding so close. I do have a slew of ideas festering in this warped little brain of mine though. I am just anal about making each piece as polished as I can before taking on too many new projects. Hope you enjoy the read (again).--- Cheapinitreal (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

YesTimeToPee!
Woah, back off there, 'cause it's YesTimeToPee...for YTTE, not you. Sorry, you'll just have to go find somewhere else to empty your bladder, or you can choose to wet yourself. I got this spot, biatch.

Humour:	7.5	First Paragraph: Your opening paragraph is definitely stronger than it was before. You've added extra, scene-setting information like "Tents were pitched for weeks ", which is good. However this beginning paragraph doesn't score any laughs or smirks. For people flicking through UnNewses they often stop reading if they aren't immediately grabbed. Of course, you don't have to get there attention with just humour. You could get them to read on, in the anticipation of the funniest joke in their life, or just general interest. If you can write the first paragraph really well, and make it really interesting and rich people will continue reading. However your opening paragraph isn't exactly awful. It's well written, just missing jokes. Second Paragraph: I see you've linked "COCKS" to sexual innuendo, which is good, but expected. The rest of this paragraph has been slightly embellished on and definitely improved, since last time I saw it. It's still not spectacularly funny. Maybe that's because I knew what to expect in the form of the "COCKS" joke, or maybe it's that you haven't packed enough jokes in there. The expanded upon quote at the end of this section has definitely been improved on comedy-wise and well-written-wise. Again, however, this quote doesn't really make you laugh, only smile. I'm sure you can fix this. It just requires even more polishing and jokeyness. Third Paragraph: "throwing garbage, infant children, and miscellaneous small change at the stage " - I like the "infant children" bit you've added in there, that made me smile. This paragraph has been re-worked and definitely reads and sounds better. Bits of it are quite funny, but none of it is hilarious. ""Cedric the Entertainer? Who the fuck did you ever entertain you cocksucker? You're not hard like these COCKS. You're not hard like me. I'm fucking Burt Young!" " is as funny as I read it last time, if more so. I like the innuendo you've added with the "hard" sentence. Good work there, that quote is almost laugh out loud, hilarious funny, but not quite. It's good though and what you've added to it is definitely for the better. Fourth Paragraph: I like your little quote from "PowarKock". Again you've improved on it, but not made it hilarious. All I can say is you're heading in the right direction. This paragraph is probably the weakest of the article and is a bit lacking punch. I like the idea of the "COCKS" marching to the town hall, but enough wasn't made of it for it to be really laugh out loud material. I feel there is more potential for innuendo for this paragraph. Maybe instead of "agitated COCKS", it should be "sore and red COCKS"? I dunno, just a thought. Fifth Paragraph: Well it's definitely been improved on from the two line paragraph it was before. I like the idea of who they're giving the money too. It's a classic example of misdirection, which is used very effectively. Again, it wasn't a laugh out loud line, but it was definitely a very funny line. Overall: This has come on a lot in the humour department and you're definitely heading the right direction, but you just need to keep pushing for even more funny. I'm pretty sure you can fit a lot more jokes, innuendo and general hilarity into this. I wouldn't say the humour here is stunning, but it could be.
Concept:	8	You know what I think about your concept. There's not much more to say as you haven't really changed the concept in any way (which is fine, I didn't think you really needed too). So here I'm just going to give you the same score and say that everything I said in the last review applies here: it's kind of an immature and childish concept centred around a group called "COCKS" - but that's not to say it isn't funny. For some reason you've made it work, but you can make it work even more, if you take some of my advice from the humour section you can push this article's comedy to some serious laugh out loud hilarity.
Prose and formatting:	8	Well you've added links here, which is a big improvement. Also the article looks generally more health and encyclopaedic with the {{cquote}} tags. This article is still quite plain in the formatting department, but I guess you don't really need outstandingly different and special formatting in every article. I still think this UnNews is a bit on the short side, though. The prose in this, however are pretty spot on perfect, now. It's written very well, in a good newsy voice and you've changed the title as I suggested. There was one or two tiny typos, but otherwise you did good in this section.
Images:	7.5	Ahh! I see you have a new image. My personal preference for the positioning of more than one picture is to have the pictures on alternating sides of the page. For me it makes the article looks better, but some people disagree with me on this. Also the final picture looks a bit out of place, what with it going into the "sources" section. Other than that you've now got the right amount of pictures with good captions (even if one of the pictures is referring to something only mentioned briefly and once). Other than what I've already said there's not much more advice to be given here, sine these pictures are fine.
Miscellaneous:	7.8	I hope you like averages, 'cause I've got a big shizzle of an average, straight out of the oven! Who wants it?
Final Score:	38.8	Well, you're getting there. The humour's moving in the right direction, in fact, everything is. However, it's not quite finished. If you can just keep up the improvements you were doing before you submitted this to pee review and just take a few of my notes on humour and the images. Other than that, it's fine - you seemed to have reached a good standard in the Prose and Formatting (and you already had a good score in the Concept section). So keep it up, good luck and any specific questions you have, just ask me at my talkpage. I wish you good luck with this and a possible VFH in the future!
Reviewer:	- [16:46 4 June] Sir FSt. Don Pleb Yettie (talk) QotF BFF NotM RotM UNPotM UGotM CUN PEE SR UnProvise