Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Divorce Is Good (2)
Why?:Divorce Is Good [edit source]
I'm coming back from about 10 months of hiatus, and as I am likely too rusty to make a new article, I'll just edit this one. Last I remember, it did decently well in VFH, so it shouldn't be that far from feature quality. --~~First Child Rei Ayanami (give orders) 23:34, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. This may be a little short, but I'll do it. Pup 10:52 14 Feb '12
| Humour: | 8 | I really like the humor in here. It may be a little name-droppy, but it works well.
To be honest there's not much I can say in this section. Best to go and read the section below it as that will make it a little clearer. |
| Concept: | 7 | I've read through this a number of times and chosen not to review it. The main reason being is that I couldn't quite work out what it was bugging me about this until today. So I'm going to run through my thought process a bit more.
The first thing that came to me is that there are a few good laughs in here. It may be a little short, but there is enough cool stuff in here that I felt that it was a clever, witty little package. The problem was that it didn't feel like it was feature worthy as it was, so I needed to work out for me where it fell down. So I read it again, and was more analytical in the way I read. Again, the jokes are well written, and relevant to the article. The format is good - nothing to stop it being a feature. But I was again left with a sense of There is something missing. To me that usually says a concept issue, but I couldn't work out what was wrong with the concept. I walked away from it and turned the concept over in my head. The first alternative that came to me was Undebate: Is divorce good?. The more I thought about this idea the more excited I got by it, seeing that this was already the Pro column already there, it just needed a Con column. I got really happy with the idea and came back to read the article, and realised I was completely wrong. This wouldn't work as a Pro column as the good thing about the debate framework is the feeding back and forth between the pro and con, and this already worked too well feeding one section into the other. So I went away again and thought some more. I will probably write that Undebate at some stage, by the way, and steal part of this for it - I still like that idea - but it wasn't quite it. So I read the article again, and then something popped out at me that I had missed before. The first two words. When I read them previously I just thought of them as establishing an audience. Then I changed the tone of them slightly to a sleazy pick up line, and that gave me enough of a change to the concept that could potentially give this the missing edge. What if this were a sleazy guy trying to convince a woman to dump her husband in order to get her into bed. I lived the idea, and got excited by it. But then I continued reading, and realised that would work well with half of what you already had, but destroy the other half. Most notably the testimonials section. But it started me working on the fact that this was a sales pitch. The way this is written is to convince someone to get divorced, but why? Basically the where's the money question. And then my final thought on concept. This is an ad for a divorce lawyer. Who else is likely to gain from convincing someone to get divorced. So that has brought me to two major things that need to be added/changed. 1) Divorce means financial independence. The wonderful thing about a section like this is that it can be phrased in such a way that a first reading could suggest being wealthy, but reading deeper it simply means that you'll no longer have to rely in someone else bringing in money, which really means that you can't rely on someone else, which effectively means financial struggle. That's double talk humour as it should be. 2) The conclusion As it is it is weak. By changing this to your closing pitch (So now that you can see how much better your life will be divorced, you'll need a divorce lawyer. As it happens, Ketchum & Ringemdry lawyers are affordable and...) you've given the logical conclusion to the article, bringing all the different sections together, and hitting us with a stronger punch line. |
| Prose and formatting: | 7 | Good formatting. Good overall look. Reads nicely. Nothing to add here. |
| Images: | 6.5 | The images are okay. There should be an image of a mother and happy kids (think breakfast cereal ad), and an image of a woman holding her aching back (think pain reliever ad). Charlie Sheen doesn't quite work. If you can find a Bullock image from a make-up ad, that would be better. (Something like this.) |
| Miscellaneous: | 7.5 | Featurable as is maybe, but top ten of the month with a few changes. |
| Final Score: | 36 | |
| Reviewer: | Pup 11:33 14 Feb '12 | |