Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Apple Watch
Apple Watch[edit]
MrMrMr (talk) 00:34, September 18, 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to book this review for the Pee Week. It starts tomorrow, but I won't be able to access Uncyclopedia before tomorrow evening. Sorry for not doing it right. Anton (talk) 17:30, November 14, 2014 (UTC)
| Added 00:34, September 18, 2014 (UTC) |
Reviewed[edit]
A little bit about the reviewer
Hello MrMrMr! Let me introduce myself: I’m Anton199, but you can call me Anton. If you have any questions or remarks about your article, my review or life in general, leave me a message here and I’ll be glad to talk to you!
Looking at the length of this review, I can only apologize and suggest that you don’t read it in its entirety if you don’t feel like it! Please, do whatever you feel like doing with it!
How and why is it funny? Any suggestions?
Apple Watch strikes me as a fine humour article with a clever and consistent prose, well-chosen images and an original concept. Everything seems to be there, but it’s impossible to be perfect, and even less - to write perfectly. Even Gustave Flaubert, a great classic who also happened to precede Mr. Wilde as Uncyclopedia’s spiritual father, had to change his writing so radically, that sometimes only several words from a page’s initial version would be kept in his final manuscript.
So, naturally, this article also has areas that you can improve on. Let’s start with humour. It seems that most of the humour you provide is based on either possibility of double interpretation, such as in “this is not the first watch of its type” or on clear parallel between your imaginary Apple and the actual Apple enterprise, like here: “apples are a status symbol due to their relative high price...” These are very good ideas. Now the most important thing to focus on is to make sure the reader and yourself know which strategy is primary and which one is being followed at the moment.
- If there are problems in your article, they often arise from some sort of confusion - at several points, I had a feeling you were almost overtly talking about Apple, Inc. and its products, and that’s a dangerous boundary to cross. For instance, why capitalize the word “apple”? It seems like a minor detail, but it makes it more clear than necessary that you’re talking about computers, while, I think, you should be talking about fruit.
- Another thing is details. They are crucial, if you want to make specific statements, instead of something general and vague, but going too far may also be a problem. Not giving enough of them is as dangerous. For example, you say: “The police can then use evidence collected...” This is a bit too detailed, as what interest does the reader have in knowing this? The additional information doesn’t seem to be reinforcing your humour in any way, so it might not be necessary.
- At the same time, as odd as it sounds, there are not enough details in some phrases. “The Apple Watch private security contractors read a specially prepared legal document”, for instance, doesn’t tell anything. What document is it? Why do they read it? There are several jokes you can make just by simply giving necessary details. What do you think about this, for example - “Upon apprehension of a criminal the Apple Watch private contractors take out a specially prepared copy of Apple’s Terms of Use and start reading it out loud. By the time they get to the point, where “thou will not steal...”, the arrested individual is usually already dead in his chair.”?
- It’s not necessary to go far in changing the text just to keep up with your humour strategy. You have some brilliant phrases and paragraphs, that if you look at and try to imitate in some less successful parts, will benefit your article greatly. For instance, you develop the four core idea very well. It starts out as something vague, but you tie it to your Apple Watch idea, which leaves no space for confusion. But even simpler methods work - well, look at your first sentence! “Apple Watch refers to an organization that protects the growth and harvest of apples.” Although there might be an issue with announcing your concept so early, it still is very funny and immediately hooks the reader, partly because it gives just the right amount of details the reader needs to know!
How good is an idea behind the article?
Your concept is well-developed and clever. Taking “Apple Watch” literally and tying all the aspects of an imaginary organization to an actual Apple product requires a lot of energy.
- That is precisely why you need to beware of little phrases here and there that can spoil such a concept. In your article, it’s vital that you know how each idea is tied to both organizations, and why not provide explanation, if needed.
- I’m taking a random example: Pebble Watch in Reception. It is easily related to Apple, Inc. and its Watch, but not to an organization protecting apples. For a moment, I thought that in your article, Pebble Watch was watching after pebbles, but then saw that it’s the Fruit Consumer Reviews writing about it. See? The reader will mostly often stop at this moment, just to try to get it, and if he doesn’t, then it will take a great deal of efforts to get him into the article again.
- Another example? “Swiss avalanche and snow watches” in the same paragraph that have no link to apples or fruit in general. In addition, you don’t explain what their soul is.
- On an entirely different note, I would like to say that, like dissertations, Uncyclopedia articles can be truly successful, if they use their topic to open up on something more general. In your case, it can be the influence Apple, Inc. and its real products have on our society, habits, lifestyle. Your concept goes well with that idea. At the beginning of History you claim that “apples are a status symbol” - but look at our world. Take a metro and note the number of people with their iPhones or iPods. Visit offices, schools, public establishments... They are more than just status symbols and this is something that needs to be made fun of.
So why not develop your ideas? Your text has a lot of potential for it, but you never really leave your topic, which, when done moderately, won’t harm your humour. I tried to rewrite the History beginning just to show you what I mean.
| “ | Historically apples have been pervading all the spheres of human life, while establishing themselves as a status symbol. Apple critics add that their price is inversely proportional to their nutritional value. The main argument of apple defenders states that they are a proof of intelligent design, while bananas are clearly a sexual innuendo. | ” |
I know that this particular example might not necessarily fit in your writing, so do what you choose to do with it!
Generally speaking, a helpful question to ask yourself while determining your concept is “Why would you, personally, be reading a humour article on Apple Watch?”
How good does it look and how well does it read?
Your prose is good and steadily encyclopedic, which is always very hard to achieve! Concerning boring things like grammar, I quickly proofread the article myself, so you can check what I modified in the history of your page, if you are interested. There are very few faults, and the most important of those few is probably the already mentioned capitalization of apples, which makes it unclear to what exactly you are referring to.
What you can really look into is the length and variety of your phrases: having mastered encyclopediness, you might be interested in rendering your prose wittier and wittier, because the tone itself can add a lot to the FUNNY. Try varying sentence length in the intro: it consists mostly of short phrases, some of which don’t tell any jokes. You can find more tips on that are at User:Thekillerfroggy/Tips, suggested by one of our most prominent writers.
The Prose section in reviews is also supposed to talk about the article’s overall look and formatting. However, I have even less to say about it than about prose!Your article looks well, your pictures are placed at strategic spots and provide a rest to a reader’s eye. There are minor things you can alter to make Apple Watch look more UNcyclopedic, such as an image in the infobox (you can change the location of one of the two of your pictures) or template {{Apple}} and categories at the end, but, looking at this aspect, there is nothing that requires major changes.
How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting?
As I said above, you have a nice choice of images and their number is perfect compared to the size of the article. But make sure they are supporting what your text says and aren’t there just for the sake of breaking the text.
- The ancient painting is a nice touch: it gives a serious aspect to the article, which only helps your humour. However, it seems to me that here, like in a few other places, you are sitting on a gold mine of ideas and aren’t exploiting it, for fear of moving away from your concept or encyclopedic tone. Yet, even though trees have branches that grow in all directions, they are still supported by a strong trunk, no? Same here: another angle on the Apple Watch’s precursor in the History section will only help you! It is fresh and funny, so why reserve this idea for the caption only?
- The second picture is an illustration in a classical sense: it simply illustrates your idea without necessarily adding a humour value to it. Images like this work on captions: choose a creative one, and they will be priceless, state something obvious, and they might significantly weaken your prose. You are mid-way between the two poles. You’re saying: “An unwatched apple tree”. There’s some potential for humour here, but I don’t see where you are going and what’s the joke. Ok, it’s an unwatched apple tree... and so what?
The article's overall quality - that indefinable something.
I am giving you a 9 out of 10 in this section, to applaud the endurance with which you made sure everything characterizing fictitious Apple Watch, down to the last detail, closely mirrored the real company’s product.
An overall summation of the article.
On your talkpage, I saw that it’s your first article. Congratulations, MrMrMr! It’s a brilliant start and can even be brought to Votes for Highlight with a few more changes!
I would suggest waiting till the memory of this article is no longer fresh in your mind, and re-read it then, as if you were not the author in order to try and spot the areas for improvement. I’ve identified some, which you might or might not agree with, but remember that the only purpose of this review is to help you and most of it is very subjective! I wish you good luck and a great experience Uncyclopeding - this site is a magic place, the wonders of which I keep on uncovering even now, after one and a half years of participation!