Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Ptok-Bentoniczny/Ski jumping

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Ski jumping

This is article about a sport that is not well-known in England or America. It's about ski jumping. I need a guy who preferably knows jack shit about it and could check it, tell if it's funny, if he likes it even he knows nothing about ski jumping and could give some suggestions about possible improvements and additions. Please ignore spelling or some grammar as it will eventually land in proofreading service.

Link is here: User:Ptok-Bentoniczny/Ski jumping

Sir Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Pisz tutaj} • KUN 21:33, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll review this. ~ 09:28, Feb 4, 2010

Humour:	7	General Comments Yep, I know jack shit about ski jumping, and what are inruns and outruns? I enjoyed reading it though. The first problem I would like to point out is the structure. It comes off as unorganised, mainly because the topics are brought up in no particular order. You should group related topics together, and organise your sections like in a Wikipedia article. For instance, "I and V" and "Telemark" should be grouped under "Ski jumping techniques", and "anorexia", "BMI", and "financial situation" should be grouped under "Ski jumper welfare" or something like that. I think it is also likely that a lot of people won't know much about ski jumping either, so it is best to arrange the sections in a reader-friendly way to introduce ski jumping to the reader. This is my suggestion: Introduction > Origin > Contemporary > Rules > Techniques > Wind > Typical jump > Hills > Teams > Culture > Welfare > Gallery. Try to imagine how a book called "Ski jumping for dummies" would be organised. Another problem is your sarcastic tone. Right at the beginning you establish it by saying "try to avoid suicide after being thrown out of the inrun of a jumping hill in the air. The one brave who is able to land farthest without dying or getting severe injury is claimed the winner", and you keep this sarcasm throughout the whole article. My problem is that at first I thought you were just being sarcastic about the ski jumpers committing suicide, until I saw the second youtube video which was my favourite part about the whole article. You see, from your text alone I couldn't tell that ski jumping was so dangerous because I just assumed that your sarcasm is for humour and exaggeration. Ski jumping sounds horrible, with impoverished athletes suffering from anorexia so they can fall off ridiculously tall cliffs - and you need to adequately convey this. You need to really emphasize the point, for instance you could give examples of some (career-ending) injuries that ski jumpers had, and make some jokes to emphasize the danger, like: Ski jumpers cannot really afford insurance, but it wouldn't matter because nobody would insure them anyway.(sorry if it's bad) And I've never really like blunt sarcasm. In my book, the highest it will ever get you is a "7". Imagination and the techniques outlined in HTBFANJS can be used to really make your jokes shine. I'll deal with this more in concept. Lead and Origins These sections are short, but I guess that's ok because the Wikipedia sections are short too. But I'm thinking you need to expand your intro to sound more serious (straight-man playing), and to give the reader an idea of ski jumping early on. I also think it would be more professional if you say "Norwegian First Lieutenant Olaf Rye", instead of "some soldier", because it sounds like you're just making it up and not even bothering to think about his name. I and V and Telemark I don't understand if judges don't like Jan Boklov, how could he win the world cup? When you reference things that other people are not likely to know about, explain what they are. Don't just throw them in and never mention them again. Like FIS, you should say "the governing body that regulates ski jumping, Fédération Internationale de Ski, or FIS" V-style makes ski jumping safer, but judges don't like it. and "There was a hidden reason in introducing this rule - landing in telemark increases risk of falling at landing." Don't you think that's weird. It's like the judges want the jumpers to get hurt. Just a thought. Wind and BMI Wind is a bit meh. But with a bit of prose tightening BMI would be ok. Contemporary I liked the "nobody cares" bit. Could be emphasized. Here you explain what FIS is. Should have been done at the first mention of FIS. That's why you should also move those 2 sections to the back. Rules I don't think you should write it this way, as it comes off as unprofessional and doesn't sound like real rules. I don't think "thou shalt" is funny, and it just decreases the article's credibility. More on professionalism in concept. And the rules are not arranged well. Related rules should be put together, and the funniest rules should be put at the end. For instance, all the Walter Hofer rules should be put after each other, and the procedure rules should be put in the order of inrun > flight > outrun, like how a ski jump would happen. My favourite rule is rule 9. However I didn't quite like the way it was phrased. I'd like it more if you make it sound like dieing is a normal thing, like: Ski jumpers should refrain from dieing while landing, or they will be disqualified. (sorry if it's bad) Too many references to ski jumpers' names. While it would be fine if you introduced the ski jumpers first, you didn't. As a result I don't know what you're talking about. What's a nordic combined? Typical jump Here, Miran Tepes is another example of one of those jokes that turn up randomly, and is never heard of again. "All ski jumpers needs to fit in the 0,02 second boundary of "good take-off"." - I don't understand what this means. You might have used too many examples. It reads like a description of notable ski jumpers instead of what happens in a jump. Hill "penis with tongue" sounds juvenile and not funny. Instead of just straight sarcasm, a bit of exaggeration couldn't hurt. Like you can say: Slovenia has more jumping hills than people. (sorry if it's bad) Don't understand what are the K and HS and G points. I'm guessing K is take off, and HS is where they start measuring?? (no idea) Also things like "some retarded cults" sounds unprofessional and juvenile. I chuckled at the "funny name" bit. Teams I found the robots bit a bit random, but remove that and with a bit of prose tightening this section should be ok. Instead of saying "reaaaaly short", you can give the reader an idea and say something like: It's like doing a long jump and landing in front of the take off point. (sorry if it's bad) Culture and Financial "Culture" is ok, and I found "financial" to be amusing. Gallery Loved the second vid. Actually went on youtube to look for more. I also noticed that a lot of jumpers curl up into a fetal position when they finish falling.
Concept:	5.5	I see that there is some bias in the article shown in phrases such as "swedish clown" and "fucking pole". I think that either the bias should be consistent, or there should be no bias, else it could be very messy. For instance, if you want bias, you can adopt the character of an Adam Małysz fan and bash all the other jumpers. Or else do in in the encyclopedic style and just have subtle bias. The main thing is to be consistent. Sounding professional is very important so that other people take your article seriously, and for some reason your jokes will end up being funnier. Also note that I gave you a lot of examples of jokes that might work better. You don't have to use them, but I'm just trying to show you how to put some imagination into the jokes instead of using only straight sarcasm. Instead of making fun of everything that comes to mind, good articles pick a few themes and emphasize them. It makes a long article easier to read and to understand. This also prevents an "information overload" especially when the reader knows nothing about the subject. Many featured articles only have 1 or 2 themes that they exploit very well. So what I think you need to do is to have a clear idea of the themes of your jokes. For instance, the jokes I liked are the injuries, the "ski jumper welfare", and "nobody cares". If you pick those themes, at every section you should try to link back to them (with jokes). We call this "making recurring jokes".
Prose and formatting:	7	I know, I know, about your English, and I try to imagine it with good grammar when I read it, so I give you a "7" for effort. You seemed to have improved as you are using more a's, an's and the's. Just run it by the proofreading department. However, there are a few things you could do on your own. I've noticed that besides grammar, you also have some spelling errors. Do you use Mozilla or MS Word (with English) or any spell checking software? Mozilla underlines the wrongly spelled words in red. MS Word tries to give grammar advice too, with spelling mistakes in red and grammar in green. These are all things that you could use to check the English yourself. I also noticed that in the link of Wolfgang Loitzl it says [1], instead of Wolfgang Loitzl.
Images:	7	You have a lot of images, and that's good. My favourite one is Adam Małysz flying over the Native Americans(?), but who's Józef Chełmoński? I guess the Youtube videos count as images too and they're pretty funny. You have a lot of images here and it's probably not good to make them all funny, but the last one was the only one that stood out to me. The rest were pretty average. You should try making the small images bigger and try to come up with funnier captions.
Miscellaneous:	6.6	Averaged.
Final Score:	33.1	This has been a long winded review by me. Scoring is arbitrary, and if you want anymore help you can find me on my talk page.
Reviewer:	~ 14:43, Feb 4, 2010