Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Waylander37/Hellboy

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

User:Waylander37/hellboy

Waylander37 19:24, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

I got this---   TALK What's it like to be a heretic? 14:39, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Unfortuantly I've been felling sick lately, and it's affecting my ability to think. So I'm afraid I'll have to put this off till tomorrow. Hopefully I'll start to feel better by then.---   TALK What's it like to be a heretic? 01:45, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Booking canceled. I'm still not feeling good. Sorry, but reviewing while dealing with a sickness is almost impossible. I'm sure another good user would review it.---   TALK What's it like to be a heretic? 05:54, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Link fixed following move. Also, just noticed how long you've been waiting for this, so I'll try to get it tonight. --Black Flamingo 19:31, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Humour:	6	Ok, so the article is a good first draft, but right now that's what it feels like; a draft. A lot of the jokes feel underdeveloped, and you have a particular problem with vagueness. For example. You introduce the character by saying he "has lots of family issues", but don't go on to elaborate what these are. Also, you make a joke about how Hellboy likes "jumping under trains". Again, I don't understand why this would be. You need to explain things more clearly. If you haven't read the books or seen the films you're not going to understand these parts. I actually have seen the film, and still don't really get it. I suppose you need to be a little broader with your jokes, otherwise you just end up writing fancruft that means nothing to your average reader. You have a bit of an issue with randomness too, I feel. Random humour rarely works because there's no thought behind it and you could basically be saying anything. Our guide to writing for the site, which I recommend you read, also suggests that truth is funnier than making shit up, and I have to agree. You say it inspired the BNP and the fictional Fourth Reich, for example, which failed to make me laugh because it makes no sense. You could have said it inspired the movie Waterworld and it wouldn't have been any more or less funny. Saying "the Harry Potter story is far-fetched in many ways, for example, a ginger kid has two friends" is much funnier than saying "Harry Potter was written on a slice of cheese by Darth Vader in 1164 BC". See what I mean there? I feel the same way about the silly film names you make up; "Gran's Labyrinth and The Midget" It just looks like you're making it up as you go along. It's a trap a lot of writers fall into but I don't think it really works; unless it has some kind of running theme that is consistent with the whole article; otherwise it looks too random. Another technique I would rethink is "sudden crudeness", which you try once or twice in the article, but it isn't particularly successful in my opinion. One instance of this is where you say "who gives a flying fuck?" Sudden crudeness can work in spoken humour but written down it tends to just look sloppy and noncommittal. Some writers can pull it off, but it's very hard. I will probably talk about this more in prose, but a consistent tone works much better. Sometimes it might not seem as funny on the surface, but the reader won't be as distracted by it, and will be more likely to be absorb themselves in the article. Overall, I would say you need a lot more jokes in here. I have a few suggestions in the next section that might help you here.
Concept:	5	The biggest problem here is that you don't have an angle; it's like you just threw every single idea you could think of into a big overflowing pot. You need to take more care to keep things consistent, and your articles will suddenly look a lot better. There are a couple of angles you could consider. Popular choices are writing in the style of the subject, like this one. Or pretending the subject is something that is isn't, like this one. Or you can just go for the standard approach, writing about the subject honestly, like this one. All great articles, and I recommend you read them if you haven't already. The key is, you have to get a lot of jokes in there and you have to be consistent with it. And be try to be satirical rather than random. And even the ones that are truthful still have an angle really, because they're never 100% truthful; however they embellish the truth rather than making stuff up outright. An angle will also help you come up with more jokes about the subject, which at the moment are lacking a little. I've probably completely lost you by this point because I'm tired and don't really have any idea what I'm talking about. But my key points are: read some of our best articles and our writing guide and take another look at your article and see how you can develop it. Really go into detail about the subject and get to grips with what (if anything) is funny about it.
Prose and formatting:	5	Well, if I had to say there was an issue with your prose it would be that it's scruffy, messy, unprofessional-looking and lacking in authority. Your spelling and grammar and everything is cool though, so obviously you know how to write; I think you just need to put a tad more time and effort into it. There's nothing particularly funny about the narrator being uninformed, lazy and colloquial, unless the joke is that he thinks he's a good narrator, but that isn't the joke here. You need to be consistent, as I've said above, and would recommend you have a think about who is narrating this. You'd probably be best with an encyclopaedic tone, but obviously it's up to you. Whatever you choose, just keep to it. For example, there's a bit where you say "we didn't believe it first time either" - who is we exactly? This is the first (and possibly last) use of the first person in the article. I'm sure I don't have to tell you how sloppy that looks.
Images:	4	The first one is kind of funny, because its shittiness is sort of amusing. But you'd probably be better off with a better opening image - something that establishes your subject. The second one, well, I didn't really get that, so it might be worth taking another look at. Also; you need a hell of a lot more. Search Google Images and have a look at Wikipedia's articles on similar subjects to see what you can find. If you do need someone to make an image for you, there is always this place.
Miscellaneous:	6	Overall feel.
Final Score:	26	So overall a decent start that just needs some expansion and development. My main recommendation would be to read the various things I've linked you to in this review, and perhaps have a rethink regarding your underlying concept. If there's anything I've said here that you want me to explain better, or if you want my opinion on anything I might have missed, or even if you're just lonely, please let me know on my talky page and I'll try to help. Keep up the good work and I hope the review is ok.
Reviewer:	--Black Flamingo 22:14, July 29, 2011 (UTC)