UnNews talk:"Crunchberries" Aren't Real Berries; Cap'n Crunch Arrested
|
The article UnNews:"Crunchberries" Aren't Real Berries; Cap'n Crunch Arrested has been reviewed by PuppyOnTheRadio(talk) | |
| Version as at 2 August 2009 | PEE review | |
Retort[edit]
I might sound curt but I'm actually in a hurry so please don't interpret my response as aggressive. (and how do I do spacing on this page)
1. You're welcome to make AP Style changes yourself. What I disagree with is the fact that you think these companies are being misleading. If you think a crunchberry is a real berry you deserve to die a painful death by the hands of an angry munchkin.
2. I have a difficult time with all these wiki-formatting things since I am knew to this. If you have the time to review this you should have the time to put an adequate picture. I wanted to recycle something other than a standard picture of the cap'n.
3. AP Style. The direct object in the lead sentence is captain crunch, NOT "police officer," namely because I did not put "police officer" in the sentence. The art of journalism is using as few words as possible while still saying as much as possible. To say who arrested him in the lead is a waste of words, which is why I left "the police" out of the sentence entirely. Invisible direct objects do not exist, unfortunately. You aren't the only kid take Journalism courses in college. There are at least 7 of us in Guam and other uS Protectorates alone!
4. Ambiguities and clarification: A class-action lawsuit is filed by a single party ON BEHALF of a larger constituent. The 8-year-old boy is the same boy who we later learn initiated the ONE investigation in the first place in order to file the suit. There is one suit. One investigation. I changed the ambiguity but it took little more than 1 minute to do so. I'd appreciate you make minor edits like that with a short explanation. Brevety is not required here.
5. I appreciate the review, however I ended with lucky charms because it seems formulaic to take the remaining cereal characters and do essentially the same thing to them. However, if you do decide to do them I would be more than happy to accept them.
6. ...and the premise is: So, other than some ambiguities that were easy to fix, what's the problem again? The joke is that the police spent one year figuring out that a crunchberry is not a real berry when every 8 year old who looks at a crunchberry knows that it is not a real berry. The parody is making the claim that crunchberries look like real berries to most people, when in reality we know 99.999% of the population knows this simple fact.
I created a world in which everyone in that world has the intelligence of the woman who initially thought they were real berries. An 8 year old boy is smarter than her. The consequences of this detail are that they spend millions of dollars and over a year of work to figure this simple little fact out. The 8 year old boy is so advanced compared to them that he's profiting off of everyone. IT's like idiocracy, except the 8 year old boy is the smart one.projectjulio 07:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- No offence taken. I've tried to be fairly clear in regards to the fact that the review is opinion, and not much else. The fact that you've gone through so eloquent a response to it shows that you've taken it seriously, and I appreciate that.
- I haven't taken Journalism studies - to be honest I barely passed high school. I do have a copy of "the elements of style" that I fall back on for these things. I understand the "As few words as possible" approach, which is why I did my best to keep the changes I suggested to as few words as possible - in fact the same number of words, but additional information given in a grammatically preferable way. The concern was more in regard the passive verbs.
- I'd suggest that you throw a request through to Uncyclopedia:RadicalX's_Corner, or have a look at an uncyclopaedian that does potatochopping that you admire and ask for them to do an image up for you.
- In the long run though the problem is that my response to the article was not a positive one. I didn't really laugh. I don't know if you've read through HTBFANJS but it is the baseline of what I look at for a review, and the remainder is from UN:PRG, but on a shorter piece like this the best that I can reach for is the emotional trigger "Did I laugh?" I threw a few things that I thought could help to turn it around, but in short if you left it the way it was an put it up for VFH, I'd vote against, and I'd suggest a few others would as well, but not be as constructive with the criticism.
- Oh, and I would never make a change in an article as I was reviewing it. Completely defeats the purpose of the feedback. I've had people do that for mine before, and it frustrates me because I take pride in the work that I do, and my mistakes should be pointed out to me, not fixed without fanfare, as otherwise how am I supposed to learn.
- Again thanks for the response. It makes me happy to know that you've read through the review. If you got so little out of it, I apologise for that, but given the review is about twice the length of the original piece, I'm sure you appreciate I gave you a significant amount to work with.
- Pup