I need some help with working with what I have got, as well as whether the premise is any good. Please be as harsh as necessary, but always add how I could improve. I am planning on adding more after I get these early kinks out, then I'll get another review. It'll get better as time goes on but make sure to take it as it is not as it will be.
Happily unreal (talk) 22:33, July 8, 2016 (UTC)
|
|
Added 22:33, July 8, 2016 (UTC)
|
[[Template:Review request/{{#time: ymd|22:33, July 8, 2016 (UTC)]]
Reviewed[edit]
A little bit about the reviewer
How and why is it funny? Any suggestions?
{{{Hscore}}}
How good is an idea behind the article?
{{{Cscore}}}
How good does it look and how well does it read?
{{{Pscore}}}
How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting?
{{{Iscore}}}
The article's overall quality - that indefinable something.
{{{Mscore}}}
An overall summation of the article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spıke 🎙️03:22 9-Jul-16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A decent article, well-formatted, not quite as long as it needs to be. No photos at all. Pee Review is a neglected part of Uncyclopedia, so please don't scold the potential reviewer on how to do the review, such as viewing what is in the article as complete. After all, what we see is all we can go on. Also, Pee Reviews should cite just the page name, not the complete URL; Expert3222 has fixed this for you.
The big problem with this article is that its only comedy strategy is to make intellectual statements that, when you work through them, turn out to be untrue. That's not fun enough! In the Intro at least, it should jump out at the reader why he's going to have a wild ride if he simply continues beyond the Table of Contents. Starting the body of the article, I start to despair at having to read the Murdoch case to learn some cracked rule of criminology. "After having no luck convincing anyone of anything other than that he should hang sooner than ever"--That, finally, was a fun turn of phrase! We are reading about a guy who tries his damnedest to do something and succeeds brilliantly at doing the opposite. (How? Why? Why have you broken new ground beyond the old line about "kids who murder their parents and throw themselves at the mercy of the Court because they are now orphans"?) Donnie Cochrane is allegory for Johnny Cochrane, right? Now you are just making up fanfiction and I wonder if you have anything in mind.
I think you need an overall strategy. See How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid for typical ones. In Section 2, you develop the line that unspecified people think X, but the truth is really not(X). This is tried often and is not an overall strategy.
Continuing further....Infamy in Nebraska? Is this about something? Or are you just writing nonsense? "As one news reporter wrote, it was as if the government gave people the license to kill and rape children." Let's work backwards:
- Killing and raping children is not hardly funny.
- The government giving people permission to do awful things--a conspiracy theory--is a meme, not a comedy strategy.
- "As one news reporter wrote" makes the sentence more awful, as it complicates it by putting it in the name of someone else who doesn't have a name, and who certainly doesn't relate to anything.
This is a satire encyclopedia, not a free-form comedy blog. This means that articles need to take something real and approach it in a funny way. The nearest I can tell, your strategy is that no one is innocent, and suspects' claims of innocence are always a devious technique rather than the truth. It would be relevant to work on several cases of famous wrongly imprisoned and wrongly executed people (whose punishment everyone knows is wrong) and come up with explanations about why their claims of innocence were mistaken--explanations that make amusement jump out of the page! Good luck! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This was a Pee Review by Spıke 🎙️03:22 9-Jul-16
{{{Yes}}}