Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:SysRq/The Deep South
User:SysRq/The Deep South[edit source]
Keeeey, so please keep in mind that this is satire when you review this. The links at the end should give away the joke, at least that's my hope. I tried really hard to just beat this joke to death, in order to make it very apparent and not just seem like I'm actually bashing the South. But, if I failed to make that clear, please give me advice on how I can better accomplish that. Thanks in advance. Cheers! —Sir SysRq (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I would convey a lack of seriousness by adding more detailed, over-the-top to unbelievable accusations and assertions. Anything ripping on the south should also have: Pigs on a spit (part of the BBQ thing) Federal intervention over civil rights - Inbreeding - White-only Golf courses (still) - "good ol' boys" (rampant corruption) - How southerners view the rest of the world (we're all faggots and punkers) - College football fanaticism - And OF COURSE......NASCAR jokes
You can take all of that stuff and just make it as fucking depraved as possible. Sacrifice toddlers! Stomp on baby ducks! Play ping-pong with a young orphans eyeball! Watch a rerun of "The Dukes Of Hazzard" online and let your mind wander. Perhaps get progressively with it. Start hostile, end homicidal instead of the steady flooooooooow of hate-- 20:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Erm, I don't think that would really be in the spirit of the joke. The joke is that I'm being ignorant and bigoted against the South, while criticizing for doing exactly the same thing against minorities. Other parts of Southern life are really unimportant to the article. Thanks for looking at it, though. —Sir SysRq (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, I didn't catch the intentional ignorance angle which is exactly what you're trying to avoid when joe-six-pack (me) reads this. The only thing that would appraise me to that angle is glaring irony. "The deep south" makes that difficult IMO because there's so many black southerners. You'd have to apply a standard that's easily recognized as normally being applied to others. What I read was generic rage/rant, not anything that would make me see intellectual irony beyond the generic hypocrisy of any over-the-top rant. That's why I suggested elevation of the attack level to unbelievability. You need to isolate your criticism as being directed at white southerners and not the south in general, then perhaps suggest some laws against them that are easily recognized as Jim Crow laws. How about the WW2 Japanese internment camp for southerners? Here's a basic, obvious irony....being forced to wear something like the jews in nazi germany.....eh?-- 21:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
| Concept: | 8.5 | The concept quite is funny overall, but there is still some potential in the article. Don't be too afraid of "offending" southerners, they did tend to be less prone to hissy fits than certain "other folk", and they are more used to criticism. Overkill to keep from offending someone might ruin the tone of the article. Some factual information: Deep (coastal) Southern English is actually quite close to British English in some ways. Both don't the letter "R" at the end of the syllable, and the preservation of the final "R" is generally associated with Celtic influence. Also, the upper south is often just as "racist" and "redneck" as the deep south. Expanding the author's hatred from just the deep south to include the whole of the south plus any sorta-southern border region might be funny. Plus, it would give you an opportunity to bash each section of the south individually. [For example, deep south proper, Appalachia, upper south (western Kentucky, Tennessee, and southern Missouri), Arkansas (Appalachia 2.0), borderline-south (Southern Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, & Pennsylvania, maybe shoehorn Arizona, New Mexico, and Kansas in there too)] You might want to try a more deadpan entry. It may run the risk of offending southerns, but I'm assume nobody cares about offending southerners, especially southerners. In fact, You might want to make this article a little longer, but because of its one-trick pony nature, you run the risk of rambling. Maybe deadpan, followed by reasonable criticism of the south, escalating into pseudo-hatecruft (relatively briefly), then revealing the joke will work. |
| Prose and Formatting: | 7 | Nothing major is wrong with the article. However, it does have the following minor issues: It has a dead link in the see also section, that just looks bad, and you only have 1 working link in the see also section. The last image might be too large. You also have too many headers. I'd advice demoting one to sub-header. You also have a lack of links later in your article. A lack of links gives your article an ugly feel. |
| Images: | 7 | The first and 3 images are good. The 3rd is especially hilarious. The 2nd one is too hard to make out, and I think it "breaks the tone" to early. You might want to replace that image, or possibly get rid of it. |
| Humour: | 7.5 | It think the humor falls a little short of the concept. Not too much, but a little. Its relying to much on realizing the author is a hypocrite, and less on actual jokes. Maybe a more "accelerating from deadpan entry" will help it. Also,"accidental" self-insults from the author or some turn-of-phrases might help. Some {{factoid}} templates might also be a good place to put some one liners to break up the prose. |
| Improvability Score: | 8 | The underlying humor is close to VFH quality, but there is too much potential for improvement to nominate it right now. Your main problem is walking the tight-rope of offensiveness versus unfunniness. Too much "sledgehammering" will make the article unfunny, too little sledgehammering will make the article "offensive". As a disclaimer, I'd probably lean toward liking a potentially offensive article. Some of the liberal-hippie-Yankees/Limeys on this site might not find this offensive unless you use the proverbial "wrecking ball" to make the joke obvious from the beginning, and therefore, they won't find it very funny at all. |
| Final Score: | 38 | I think this article is close to VFH quality (I'd probably give it a "weak for" after a quick formatting clean-up). |
| Reviewer: | --Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 21:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC) | |