Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnNews:Massacre at Brookfield Zoo (Steel Kidney in-depth)
UnNews:Massacre at Brookfield Zoo [edit source]
I'd like an in-depth review by a Steel Kidney. *Ahem* Important notice: This review is kinda reserved for UU. Any comments or suggestions concerning the article are very welcome, but I'd like UU to do the review.
—Sir Socky
(talk) (stalk)
GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Note to reviewer: There's a possibility that because of certain settings on your computer and the internet browser you're using, the images might look as if they are out of place. If so, please notify me. Pressing "Print Screen" and showing me the resulting image would be very helpful in that case. —Sir Socky
(talk) (stalk)
GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:43, 26 May 2009 (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). |
Hoboy, you really want me to review this, don't you? OK, brace yourself for the treatment! --UU - natter 18:57, May 30
| Humour: | 6 | I don't quite know how to put this, Sock, because you've put a lot of time and effort into this one, and it clearly is your baby. However, I don't find it that funny. The worst part about it is that this is the biggest problem with the article - a few typos apart, the other sections are gonna score pretty well. But I'm not getting any major laughs here. Looking over your previous reviews, apart from a rather enthusiastic score from Saberwolf, this seems to be the consensus opinion: it's well written and so forth, but there aren't that many laughs in it. Sometimes it's better to leave an article and move on. However, as you are so keen to make this one work, here are my thoughts:
It's still too wordy in places. Ol' OEJ mentioned this, and you've done something about it, but in a report about fast-moving action, there are still plenty of long words and unwieldy sentences. Florid prose is fine in its place - I use it a lot, as you'll no doubt know - but here it inhibits the feel and flow of the article. So read it through again, looking for areas that could be made more short and punchy - there are a few, "Ruffles consequently leaped out of his confinement, towards his freedom and his terrified pray" being one (and I should mention this in the prose section, but that should be "prey", not "pray"). Then, there's too much time spent on graphic descriptions of the carnage - that's just not funny to me, and I had to fight back my natural urge to skip ahead. I think you're being a bit too straight there - there's no real comedy in this carnage, and there are opportunities for it. I'm sure more absurd things can be achieved with rampaging penguins than just "devouring human flesh". Look at that again dispassionately - does it make you laugh? Does the mental image give you even the slightest chuckle? Not at the moment. Killer penguins have potential, in fact all of the less aggressive animals getting murderous has more potential. Rhinos and the like - you can believe they'd go on a rampage. Chipmunks, penguins and the like inspired by a tiger to go on a killing spree? Better, but you need to evoke the absurdity more, and I'm not feeling it here. Other ideas either don't work or aren't explored enough, and there's a feeling you may be over-egging the pudding a little here too. The tiger declaring himself king of the zoo could be explored more, for instance - were there any lions to argue the toss? How did animal politics accept this? And other zoos restricting animal communication - how? Not like you can just take their cellphones away - taping wolves' jaws shut so they can't howl, attempting to put ear muffs on animals with particularly good hearing - more absurd ideas that also explain something that seems a little baffling - it's not really funny right now, so why mention it? I like Gerry's idea of him having had a long-established escape plan that little Jimmy inspired him to put into action at that point. I wonder why any girl would be staring lustfully at some walruses. I wonder even more how she can understand what the tiger roars at her. That's not funny. It's not absurd either - it's just incongruous, and doesn't get the reader on your side. I don't think the tiger evading tranquiliser darts helps much either - perhaps the zookeepers had trained on shooting at sacks, and that hadn't adequately prepared them for being faced with a snarling wild tiger at close range? Might be a fun way to explain why they were really poor shots. I do like the animal activists bit - it's the closest to satire you get, and animal activists who support violence against innocent humans in order to free animals is a nice thing to poke a little fun at. I'd go a little further though, and make it plain that he's so happy to support this massacre because he's thousands of miles away, on the other side of the country or something. Undermine him that bit more. Oh yeah, and make "It needs solutions'. It needs change. It needs action!" a little more absurd, add something like "it needs total annihilation of all who oppose the rights of all creatures to live in peace and harmony" or suchlike - always go one louder (if you'll spot the Spinal Tap reference). Oh, and I like the bit about survivors being put in cages - a neat reversal. But thrown away at the end of a paragraph I've already mentioned I felt the urge to skip. Make more of this - it's a fun idea! I don't really see the relevance of the Dawkins bit to the article, but it's not a major problems. Oh, and the final bit - no pay-off. At least have the tiger admit that when every human has been eradicated, the animals will go back to the gentle, natural cycle of hunting and killing each other, or something like that - a little more zing at the end, at least. That should be enough to keep you going! |
| Concept: | 8 | Fine, no problem, animals go mad at the zoo and attack humans, based on a real incident. Not a problem with the basic idea. The problem is you're focussed too much on the carnage and so forth, and you're not bringing enough of the absurdity out. I'm thinking Homer Simpson with a cloud of bees around him: "it's like they're defending themselves somehow!" Perhaps have a zoo spokesman declaim "who'd have thought that confining naturally wild animals, depriving them of their habitat and the contact of many of their own kind, and then pointing, staring and shouting at them all day would have got them so upset?" Well, something a little better than that, but you get the idea. And seriously, killer penguins should be funnier than that. They just should. |
| Prose and formatting: | 7 | No major problems, well written in the main. Too well written in places, as I've already observed. Pare it down a bit, make it leaner, meaner, pacier to zip through. Read it aloud a couple of times, and see if that helps you spot the bits where you get bogged down.
Also:
|
| Images: | 9 | Excellent, well chosen, captioned well, relevant and everything. Perhaps the tiger one is a little large, but no complaints here. Superb. |
| Miscellaneous: | 7.5 | Averaged - it's the law of the jungle. |
| Final Score: | 37.5 | OK, the bottom line is, it's just not that funny. Your other reviews in the main flagged up the same thing, and while you've made changes, you really haven't teased enough funny out on the way. Think about ways to add absurdity (note: this is not the same as random, think of things that will give amusing mental pictures). Penguins (sorry to harp on about them, but I want them to be funnier) just eating flesh - not really that funny. Penguins waddling towards a hapless victim, slowly, gently but mercilessly buffeting them to death as they huddle round them in typical penguin fashion? Getting closer, I think.
Summary: make it snappier, cut down on the dull violence, add some more cartoonish absurdity to it (even if you don't describe it cartoonishly). I honestly don't know how this will fare on VFH despite your crusade with it - it's reminding me a lot of AE's quest to get Fat Americans featured. But given the amount of effort and determination you've put in, I'd love to see you succeed. Be warned though: I won't vote for just because I want to see you succeed, I'll only vote for if you find that extra funny. As always, other opinions are available, (although you've had a few already), and (and I honestly mean this) good luck! |
| Reviewer: | --UU - natter 19:55, May 30
| |