User:Under user/PLS 09 Judgifying
My incontrovertible opinion will be displayed below. Gaze in awe at how right I am.
User:Sycamore/Money[edit | edit source]
As an article[edit | edit source]
Well, this is probably the most directly satirical article, working on an interesting variation of the "money = evil" theme. The ideas are nice, and overall it's a good read. I chuckled, but mainly at the well used and captioned pictures. The article itself is more of a good read than a laugh-out-loud one - my kind of thing, normally. But while I enjoyed the read, and it's certainly well done, I don't know how funny it is. Hmm. Also, there are a few grammatical issues that need tweaking. There are one or two problems in the other articles, but for some reason this triggered my pedantic reflexes slightly more - not sure why. That doesn't affect the outcome of this, of course, I just wanted to note it.
As an effective rewrite[edit | edit source]
Big improvement. The existing article is disjointed, listy, random in places and not good. Again, not so much a rewrite as a new article in place of the old one.
User:Sonic80/HowTo:Online Jihad[edit | edit source]
As an article[edit | edit source]
Oh-kayyy, an interesting title, ripe with possibilities, and the old religious hot potato to play with. Unfortunately, while it is decent enough, it doesn't really get me chuckling that much. Oh, I get it, and it's decent, but this raises a few smiles, but no out-and-out chuckles. The old Spam repetition is amusingly handled, and not overdone, although it gets close. I dunno, this moves in the right direction, and I want to really like it, but I think the promise is greater that the product.
As an effective rewrite[edit | edit source]
Hum, well this is the closest rewrite so far - taking the original ideas and reworking them. Ironically, it's probably the one that's the smallest improvement over the original, largely because the original is not too bad. Shame, really.
User:Richard Indhand/Pantera[edit | edit source]
As an article[edit | edit source]
Oh blimey, four quotes off the bat - not a great sign. It's random, there's fancruft through it, there's nothing particularly funny about it at all, no ideas here, and oh dear there's even Norris, and a lame discography section. I try to be diplomatic, but this is just not good. Doesn't seem there's been much thought or effort.
As an effective rewrite[edit | edit source]
Ah, that's why. There was no thought or effort - it's largely the same as the existing article with a few different song titles in the discography, and a few quotes tacked on. It's gonna take some effort for another article to dislodge this from the bottom of my list.
User:Zheliel/L[edit | edit source]
As an article[edit | edit source]
Honesty is the name of the game here. I'm seeing two quotes, one a Wilde one, neither that great, Martians for no discernible reason, 1337 and {{username}} in the first few lines, so I'm not that impressed right off the bat. And after further reading, I'm not impressed. It's random, and really didn't have a single coherent thread through it. I kind of liked the idea about the letter evolving from the single downstroke capital I, but beyond that, I didn't find too much to enjoy. I like to be more positive than this, but I'm struggling. Sorry, if the author's reading this.
As an effective rewrite[edit | edit source]
Well, there's more to it than the crappy little stub that's there at the moment.
User:GlobalTourniquet/Oscars[edit | edit source]
As an article[edit | edit source]
Hmm, it's a rant. A well written rant that I agree with a significant amount of, but still a rant. It feels too... ranty, as well. There's not enough levity or variety - it's one guy's opinion on why the Oscars suck, and that's pretty much it. It's amusing in places (although that Best Picture section is way overlong. Can't disagree with it, but sometimes less is more, y'know? Now, this leaves me in an interesting position, as I enjoyed a lot of this article, and there are some excellent chuckles in here (although fewer the less you know about films - a lot of this whooshed over Mrs UU's head and hit the wall with a disappointing "pluff" sound); but I also felt it outstayed its welcome, and was in need of a really good editor to snip it down into a winning piece. I know this feeling - you don't want to leave anything out, you want to make every point, and they are all fairly valid. But while I like it, I'd be happier if it was tighter and more focussed. Is it funny? In places, undoubtedly. Is that enough? Not sure.
As an effective rewrite[edit | edit source]
Well, it takes the same basic feel of the existing article, and is a massive improvement on it. Does a good job here.
User:15Mickey20/Claude Debussy[edit | edit source]
As an article[edit | edit source]
This feels unfinished, to be honest. I like the idea and the theme, and the first part set it up really nicely - I chuckled during the first part of the "Early Life" section, and thought this was going to be really good. But while the idea was sustained quite well across the rest, it kind of runs into a brick wall - feels like it needs to continue, and I'm pretty sure that's not where it was meant to end. I think with more work this will be a real winner, but right now it falls frustratingly short. Still has some very nice lines and some good chuckles though, and I enjoyed reading it.
As an effective rewrite[edit | edit source]
Hum, well essentially it's a completely different article that shares the same name. Fine, it's a much better article, but it's not quite so much a re-write as a re-start. --UU - natter 
19:35, Apr 1
Final Positions[edit | edit source]
My findings: the Pantera one is crap, and comes last. L is next due to randomness. Then things get more interesting. I think that despite being decent, the Jihad article didn't amuse me enough to come above the others and so is 4th. The Oscars article made me laugh in places, but was the least focussed of the top 3, and outstayed its welcome. A judicious trim by someone with less attachment to it could have made it a real contender. The Debussy article started well, and had its moments, but stopped dead unsatisfyingly and felt incomplete. I look forward to seeing it fully finished. Which means that, despite not being a gut buster, as the most complete article, and an interesting satire, Money takes it for me.