Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Jack Thompson
Jack Thompson[edit]
First article writing, comments? Thanks in advance btw. --Druss 00:30, 3 January 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). |
OK, I'll pick it up, but be warned: this may not be pretty. --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 15:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
| Humour: | 2 | Sorry to say, there isn't much. What we have here is basically a bit of hatecruft - ie an article devoted basically to personal abuse. It's not funny, we see it a lot with the more popular hate figures, and Jack certainly fits into this category. Now, he's not high on my christmas card list either, but a page devoted to telling us what an idiot you think he is is not funny. |
| Concept: | 2 | There isn's a concept here beyond "Jack Thompson is a fucktard". A good article has a coherent central thread that the rest of it hangs from. A biographical style often works well for real people - although we have precious few good examples of such. Buster Keaton is one that works well. When you have a good central concept, coming up with funny lines and sections within it becomes a lot easier. |
| Prose and formatting: | 3 | Basic wiki formatting is fine, but there is a lot of bad writing here. Lots of bad grammar, plus a long list (we don't like long lists) and some future dates in the timeline (putting in dates that haven't happened yet is not funny, it's just clearly wrong) plus a big ol' section of quotes at the bottom (too many quotes is a bad thing, especially when they're all so obviously false). |
| Images: | 5 | OK, I'll be generous with this one - there are some, one or two are even relevant. That merits an average 5. |
| Miscellaneous: | 3 | Averaged according to ancient curse. |
| Final Score: | 15 | This is a mess, honestly. It's ranty, unstructured, name-droppy (Kanye West, Paris Hilton, Steve Ballmer, blah blah), listy, and not very funny. This is the kind of thing we see do very badly on VFD. That's not a personal attack, that's honesty - I don't want you to be in any illusions here, as it stands, this is not good. But there is hope - there is always hope - see the comments below. |
| Reviewer: | --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 15:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |
OK, some brief thoughts:
Please take some time to read HTBFANJS. Even if you already have, do it again. That shows you the kind of thing we aspire to here. I'm not saying you can't say Jack is a dick, but try to be a bit more subtle about it. There's this literary technique called "show but not tell". Basically, you can show by his actions and his own utterances what kind of ill informed scaremongering jackass he is without putting it in bold for everyone to see. Subtlety is the key. You can even write an article from his viewpoint, in which you are ostensibly supporting him, and just leave the absurdity of the situations you put him in to tell the true story for you.
Other general things: reduce that great stack o' quotes - long quote sections go down really badly around here. Similarly, consider ditching the timeline, or at least shortening it, and keeping the dates to ones that have already happened. Lay off the personal abuse, and try to write something a little more thoughtful.
It may also help you to take some more time and look through this and see the kind of thing that is featured around here. It may give you some ideas.
Finally, please don't take this personally - many writers on here started off producing something of this standard, and went on to do much better things - you can learn a lot if you want to! And remember: this is only my opinion, and good luck! --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 15:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)