Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Is a raven like a writing desk?
Why?:Is a raven like a writing desk?[edit source]
--Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 22:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read this before your review!. The title of this article is not a random, stupid one but is instead a quote from Alice's Adventures In Wonderland. The whole article is meant to be written relatively similar to the style of Lewis Carrol in Alice's Adventures In Wonderland. It's not necessarily trying to be funny as such, more of an enjoyable read. And it's certainly not trying to be stupid. Kthx. 
<talk.work.?pedia.
| Humour: | 3 | An interesting enough opening, but then it loses its charm pretty quickly. See comments. |
| Concept: | 3 | I love Lewis Carroll, and his brand of nonsense is always welcome. But the clumsy rape gag certainly isn't to my taste, and not enjoyable as a read. I had expected something a tad more whimsical following your preamble above. |
| Prose and formatting: | 7 | Well written enough, although the sudden large red text splits the second half and completely breaks the flow. I almost thought it was vandalism at first, it feels so out of place. |
| Images: | 5 | Images, relevant ones. Fine enough. They don't add anything though. |
| Miscellaneous: | 4.5 | Averaged. |
| Final Score: | 22.5 | Perhaps I'm not quite the right person to review this, but what I was finding an passable bit of nonsense took a dive in the second half with the subtle-as-a-sledgehammer rohypnol bit. I think this needs work to achieve your stated aims. See comments. |
| Reviewer: | --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 22:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC) | |
OK, that's not a good score, but this has potential. Now I agree, Alice is daft to drink and eat anything and everything offered to her, and there's plenty of scope for showing she's made bad choices, but with a bit more subtlety than this. Show but not tell is the key here - suggest, use Alice's dreams, suggest what's happening through imagery rather than rather blunt statement. You've shown in the first half of the article that you can write, so try to use more subtle strokes to paint the picture.
It's also pretty short. Expand a bit, maybe set the scene a little better, spending more time examining the absurdity of the question. You obviously know Carroll, so enjoy yourself with his prose a bit more.
I'd offer more suggestions, but frankly, I enjoy nonsense, but I've never been that good at writing it. Certainly not good enough to come up with something sustained enough to avoid feeling like an Illogicopedia article. That's the trick Carroll managed, and if you're shooting for that, good luck to you!
Remember, this is only my opinion, others are available. But I'd be interested to see where you take this, and if you find these comments helpful. Good luck! --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 22:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review... I have to say I was expecting a poor score from the word go... But I certainly wasn't expecting a review this helpful, so thank you! I've already adjusted the view of the "Rohypnol joke" and plan on taking this article to a far better place using your suggestions. D'you reckon that I could do this up enough to be featured? It might have a good enough concept (i.e. based on famous literature etc.). Whimsy ahoy! <talk.work.?pedia.