Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Do I need to provide this? (2nd)
Why?:Do I need to provide this? [edit source]
Well, how is it? Funny? Very funny? Died of laughter? Whole family died of laughter? Or not funny at all and now I want my money back you dirty thief? Please tell me, in-depth of course. Thanks! • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Monday, 02:35, Mar 29 2010
- Wow! Unique! Do we really need to
screw this upreview this? I'm ready to Nom it. OK?--Funnybony
20:17, Mar 30
- Hey, thanks! But, I'd really like to get a review first, if that's alright. Perfectionism, you know how it is. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Tuesday, 20:29, Mar 30 2010
- Apparently, Funnybony went and nommed it anyway, at 20:34, Mar 30 20:34, March 30, 2010 (UTC). I'm going to have a talk with him about that. King of the Internet Alden Loveshade??? (royal court) 20:43, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm aware. I'm flattered, but would SOMEBODY review my article please? • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Wednesday, 20:51, Mar 31 2010
- I mentioned your request at Uncyclopedia:VFH/Why?:Do I need to provide this?. I'd do it myself if I hadn't already written the first review. King of the Internet Alden Loveshade??? (royal court) 21:07, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I can see how someone could see that as an issue — I don't, really. So it's open to you too. There'll be a cookie for you! (And if it's really good, a golden shower) • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Wednesday, 21:19, Mar 31 2010
- I really don't know if I'd be able to do this in a timely manner, and I'd prefer you get the benefit of someone else's perspective. I'm leaving it open to another reviewer. If I end up with time and no one else has done it, then I'd do it. King of the Internet Alden Loveshade??? (royal court) 21:24, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I can see how someone could see that as an issue — I don't, really. So it's open to you too. There'll be a cookie for you! (And if it's really good, a golden shower) • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Wednesday, 21:19, Mar 31 2010
- I can get this in the next 48 hours Necro -- 01:07 EST 1 April, 2010
- I mentioned your request at Uncyclopedia:VFH/Why?:Do I need to provide this?. I'd do it myself if I hadn't already written the first review. King of the Internet Alden Loveshade??? (royal court) 21:07, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm aware. I'm flattered, but would SOMEBODY review my article please? • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Wednesday, 20:51, Mar 31 2010
- Apparently, Funnybony went and nommed it anyway, at 20:34, Mar 30 20:34, March 30, 2010 (UTC). I'm going to have a talk with him about that. King of the Internet Alden Loveshade??? (royal court) 20:43, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks! But, I'd really like to get a review first, if that's alright. Perfectionism, you know how it is. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Tuesday, 20:29, Mar 30 2010
|
¡Hola! This valiant VMI cadet is here to guard this article while it is reviewed by:  If he hasn't reviewed it |
| Humour: | 7.5 | The way I review, I generally put the majority of my comments and suggestions in the humor section. This allows me to Initial ImpressionsWell, let's see. this is pretty funny as is, evidenced of course by its nomination on VFH. I do think however there are ways to improve this article, I'll try my best to be as in-depth as possible, but I'm pretty satisfied with what you've written. More details (unnecessary privacy invasion)The introduction to me is the best section of the article; it's the most relatable to real-life experiences. I can remember filling out paperwork and going, "wtf?" to questions before. Really though, this is a good introduction to your article, it sets up the tone and narration and the story. "I realize this is probably in my best interest" - These sorts of articles are always hard, being that they are a one-sided narration. That said, I feel as though, while clever and funny, this feels a little bit too much like a one-sided conversation. What I mean is that you need to add a little more filler in-between questions to make it seem more like a conversation than simply a question-response exchange. What is effective though is that you are revealing what the 'receptionist' is saying without providing her dialogue for the most part. btw, this: "what do you take me for" was really funny. "I'm only here for a check-up! - I feel as though there needs to be a more effective transition between this section and the last one. You pose the "why do I need to provide this" question at the end of the last section. naturally it dictates a response. I feel as though the 'receptionist' would start to give some sort of bullshit answer, with which the narrator would cut her off with an interjection. as such, I think you can make the beginning of this section strong by including something like, "Listen, that's all fine and dandy, but I'm only here for a check up" as the lead in. This makes it seem more like a conversation would imo. As for the rest, it's good to go imo. "It makes no sense" - I really like the "PC" jokes, those were pretty funny imo, almost as if the people in the doctors office are offended by the man's questions and behavior and his "non-PC" verbiage only adds the icing on the cake for them, if that makes any sense. More of the same comments as above really, this section doesn't present any major problems and it helps progress the story along. "Doctor Packs!" - Ok, so here's the deal with this last part of the story, it suddenly ends. This isn't a bad technique for writting, but it is when you leave two cliffhangers that will never be answered as opposed to one. One makes the reader think further, two leaves them frustrated. What I mean is that you never really find out what happened to the narrator, you're just left with his question to the doctor as we presume security is coming. You also never reveal what the question was. Now, along these lines, there's only one way to remedy this, you must reveal one of these things to the reader. You must either reveal what the question is at the very end, or you must let the reader know what happens, you can even do both in a way. My suggestion would be if you choose to reveal the question, have it be either extremely personal and unrelated, much like the narrator complains, or just a really mundane question, thus justifying the doctor's and secretaries reactions. If you're going to reveal what happens to the man, make it funny. have him dragged away or something, but don't leave a doubt in the readers mind as to what could happen next. Now if you choose to do both, you have security taking him away as he screams "why do I need to answer whether <insert the question here>?" or something to that effect. Either way, I wouldn't keep it the way it is (I was particularly disappointed by the ending). Last CommentsOk, this is still pretty funny as is. I would just focus on the ending a little more and add more "PC" correction jokes, those worked pretty well for you, maybe adding two or three more couldn't hurt. I also have another suggestion that I think would be more appropriate for the concept section. |
| Concept: | 7.5 | Pretty good. We've all had those moments when filling out information where it seems like some questions are more invasive than others, and maybe some of us have even asked about it or even over-reacted. I also like the narrative appraoch to it, and the fact that it's a "why?" series that isn't informative in the slightest, even in an in-universe sense.
Now, here's my suggestion that I talked about earlier: redo the section headings. I saw a technique in another article of this nature that was really effective. Use the section headings as the dialogue for the people other than the narrator. This allows the narrators responses to be centered around a physical piece of dialogue without interrupting the narrative style of excluding the other person's dialogue. It can also reveal the other person's state of mind. For example, your first section heading could be something like, "Well sir, this information will be used to provide you with the best care possible" of something like that. You can begin the text underneath with the current heading. Using this formula I think can really improve the quality of your article. |
| Prose and formatting: | 8 | Not bad. I didn;t notice any overt spelling or grammar mistakes. Although, this line tripped me up quite a bit, "Why you won't tell me why I need to provide this," under the "It makes no sense" section. I realize that it is meant to be a continuation of the section heading, but it comes off really awkward. Also, if you choose to implement what i suggested in 'concept' you'll definitely have to rearrange some words here, and in other places. |
| Images: | 9.5 | Best part of the article in terms of overall humor, these are extremely clever related images. I really like the first picture of the secretary. I really like how you utilize the pictures to form the POV of the narrator, from the secretary to what I assume is a memory of a past checkup. very effective use, a very funny. |
| Miscellaneous: | 7 | me level of enjoyment from reading the article |
| Final Score: | 39.5 | tough review to do considering its already up on VFH and I know you probably won't change much since its going to be featured. that said, I hope you do consider doing my section headings idea, I think that could be the thing that could most improve your article. Also resolving the ending is important, but I wouldn't be extremely upset if you didn't change that around. Anyways, questions or comments, you know where to find me. PS, happy Easter! |
| Reviewer: | -- GUN WotM RotM FBotM VFH SK Maj. ΥΣΣ 02:38 EST 4 April, 2010
| |