Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:So Serious?
Why?:So Serious?[edit source]
Hey! Review! A collab between be and TLB, so it must be at least Pop Secret good.
TKFU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 
18:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Also, if you just average the other scores in the miscellaneous section, I'll split your head open with a pointy rock. I want the miscellany of my article properly analyzed, dammit. --
TKFU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 
18:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
|
A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article is being reviewed by: UU - natter  (While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead). (Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole). |
Actually, it's not a mug o' tea this time, but a small glass o' reviewin' strength port, but the sentiment's the same. --UU - natter 20:45, Oct 29
| Humour: | 8.5 | Pow! A good score to kick things off with. I like giving good scores, makes me feel fuzzy. But I can see why Sycamore didn't feel able to review this - it's a tricky little bugger to nail down. Putting my finger on what I particularly liked is pretty easy, but trying to sum up why it gets an 8.5 instead of 10 is not so easy. Hmm.
So, which bits did I particularly like? The Jews, Television, Stuffed Animals and Darfur bits. They were my favourites. The Darfur bit is a good one-liner, in particular, and the Television and Stuffed Animals bits just escalate the absurdity. Having said that, I did feel the paedophile (sorry, have to use poncy Brit spelling) bit in the Rainbows section, while good, was a bit predictable. when you've got a disturbing adult talking to kid article on Uncyc, I'm pretty much expecting a paedo bit to come up. So to speak. It would be a refreshing change if that didn't happen one time. But then, it's well done, and doesn't go further than implication and suggestion, which is cool. The intro and the first section set the idea up pretty well, although the shift in the person being addressed from Marlena to the kid somehow doesn't work, for me - I don't know, as I say it's difficult to put my finger on why, but it just doesn't sit right for me. Perhaps try to re-work the start to have the guy grumbling to the kid from the get-go? I don't know. I'm doing my best here - hope TKF finds this feedback constructive enough! ;-) The ice-cream section starts to pick up, and while it's not a favourite, that's just because it's establishing the tone, and setting up the bits that do work later. And then the ending - actually, I quite liked that too - I did think it was going to be the old "guy escalates further from disturbing to downright psychotic" ending, so it kind of threw me a little too. Don't know if you'll get everyone like that, but it worked for me. So yeah, not sure about the intro, and it takes a couple of sections to really hit its stride, and I'm sort of not entirely sold on the Rainbows section. That's probably the best explanation for why it doesn't get full marks. But the rest made me laugh, hence why it does get a high mark. |
| Concept: | 8 | Thank fuck it's not an article explicitly and obviously about The Joker/Heath Ledger. Much better idea - not what I expected. I like. |
| Prose and formatting: | 9 | Fine. As I'd expect, given that we have two of the site's best writers here. As I am a pedantic git, though, I will just point out that "sillyness" should actually be "silliness" (although it is one of those words that looks more and more wrong the longer you look at it, don't you think?). |
| Images: | 9 | The right number, I'd say, and well used - appropriate, distributed evenly, captioned appropriately. No problems here either. |
| Miscellaneous: | 8.1 | Averaged, then half a point taken off for TKF's threat. I don't work well under threats. |
| Final Score: | 42.6 | Right, as I may have observed elsewhere, this is a tricky bugger to nail down. I like it. I really like it. I'm not entirely sure why, and I'm not entirely sure how to improve it either (apart from that spelling thing, which I'm gonna sort out right now).
I'm also not sure what other people will make of it, as this is only my opinion and blah blah blah. Still, there's only one way to find out: nom the bugger. So that's what I'll do. Good luck! |
| Reviewer: | --UU - natter 21:15, Oct 29
| |