Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Pikachu
Pikachu[edit]
Mad Scientist Adam Mada 00:45, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
Make sure to review the Pikachu page as best as your ability allows. Your supposed to semi-figure what the Pikachus are talking about by the tone the syllables give out and by checking were the links would take you. (Using the clues to solve the puzzle in other words...) I'll give you a hint; it involves Nazi Pikachu, Nazis, illegal Pichu pornography (metaphor), the Pokemon franchise, ect... Oh and take note that the page is catogorized in the nonesense table, people are not supposed to fully know and/or have a hard time understanding what it says. Take the AAAAAAAAA! or EBG13 pages as examples.
Note: The title of the last two Pikachu-related subjects don't have any content written. This is because the two pictures in each one represent the whole idea and because they also serve as yet another overused "Pikachu".
4 Pi-pi
5 Ka-Ka
6 Chu-Chu
Two pikachus in one, get it, no... Well they also mean:
Pi-pi = Urine, pee pee... The "picture's margin bottom" says Hot Pikachu action in Pikachurize. Make the connection with the Pi-pi
Ka-ka = Shit, ca ca, poo poo... The "picture's marin bottom" says...
Also Note: Amazingly the somewhat-shity article turned out to be better and more complex than anticipated. Therefore I will not further explain the other 52-somthing, hard to make out refrences, jokes, definitions, ect... Figure it out yourself, its up to the readers interpretation anywho anywhay.
| Humour: | 3 | Calm down, relax. Have a seat in the couch that totally isn't going to collapse into the basement through a trapdoor—I promise it won't.
I'll say it from the start, it is and is not your fault that this article gets such a low score from me. Part one of why it isn't is that I am not a fan of Pokémon. I could ramble on and on about how the entire show makes barely any sense, but I'd ramble away from this article, so all I'll say about it is that yes, I used to watch the show; no, I don't remember anything about it except, quelle coincidence! Pikachu; and the only reason I remember Pikachu is that he kept muttering nothing more than his own name, the vain inconsiderate creature. So, how is it your fault that this gets such a low score? Well, in the humour department in particular, the problem is that even after you rewrote this, I still don't get any of the jokes. I still feel exactly like Pikachu's dictating the whole thing to me and I'm annoyed as zark since I can't understand a thing! I can't even attempt to interpret this because it's a wall of "pi"'s, "ka"'s, and "chu"'s, with the occasional accent marks and punctuation. In fact, this whole article renders my traditional section-by-section review format moot:
|
| Concept: | 2 | Here's where part two of why this is not your fault comes in: the concept of nonsensical articles being funny. When you rewrote this article, that concept should have been thrown out the top of the London Eye at the speed of sound at the Great Wall of China. Of these "nonsense" articles—well, of the ones I bothered to glance at—AAAAAAAAA!, that Morse code thing, Scat singing, and Insert title here were featured. Here's why they were featured:
So, what can we take away from this? Point one: make your article easily understandable. Sure, some articles are purposely inscrutable, but how am I supposed to find that inscrutability funny in any way, shape or form? If I have to do a dozen pages' worth of guesswork just to figure out a joke that I, a non-Pokémon fan, wouldn't get anyway, then that's more annoying than funny. Right now all I get from the article is that Pikachu's language is the syllables of his name repeated endlessly. Great. Also, bad concept. Point two: actually, no, that was it. Make it understandable. I know you must have spent ages trying to come up with some sort of code, but it really wasn't worth it. Nazi Pikachus, illicit materials, Pokémon—all this sounds wacky and disjointed by itself, and having it in completely incomprehensible form isn't really all that solid of a concept. Besides, it's not even a widely recognised code like ROT13 or ASCII—it's your own code, and relies heavily on very subtle cues. Other people just won't get it. I'm sorry, but they won't make the effort—zark knows I didn't. Just write it in English. Oh, and my real point two is: draw from the actual show. Treating Pikachu like a real creature and pointing out all of the idiosyncrasy and ridiculousness of the show in that way? Perfectly fine. Making Pikachu into Nazis for no good reason? Er, read this top to bottom. Really read it. If you've already read it, reread it, and really reread it. Even if you don't follow it 100% of the time, it helps. |
| Prose and formatting: | 3 | I can't fault you on prose—it's in impeccable Pikachese as far as I can tell. But again, better to write this in English, for the same reason you don't always write about characters in the style in which they speak—it's easier and funnier that way.
Formatting could use some touch-up. No reason to have three disambiguation templates, the article being watched box doesn't make a lot of sense, it could use an infobox, that section without a title for its header looks really out of place and should probably just go altogether, and you need more categories. |
| Images: | 4 | Well, at least they're relevant, as far as I can tell. But again, with this Pikachuspeak, you can't milk all the latent humour out of them. Should you choose to rewrite this in English, this would no longer be a problem. But just looking at the images: one is from ebaumsworld (in other words, get it off of there), one is displacing a quote (in other words, move it out of there), I'd like to see plain English captions for the middle four, one is really low-quality because it's taken off of a TV screen (can you find a better original?), and one could be cropped to just one of the four copies of itself. |
| Miscellaneous: | 2 | I know this is below the average score, and I'm very, very sorry to have to give you this review in general, but all I can say is that this is not an idea you should have stuck with when you overhauled this. |
| Final Score: | 14 | Well, no, that's not all I can say. I should probably tell you that this is my review of the article, and that my opinions should not in any way be seen as the opinion of the rest of the Uncyclopedia community. Who knows? Maybe I'm the only one that finds this quite devoid of humour. You don't necessarily have to take my advice if you think it's devoid of any sense or reason. But regardless, to recap: couch not sitting on trapdoor, completely incomprehensible, your fault, not your fault, nonsense is funny only when done right, this isn't the place to do nonsense (right or wrong, really), funniness would come from plain English and some satire, read this, format better, more categories, recap, couch, incomprehensible, yes, no, nonsense, isn't, funniness, this, format, categories, recap c i y n n i f t f c r. Good luck with this, and hope you stick with it. |
| Reviewer: |                Sir MacMania GUN—[02:27 27 Jul 2010]
| |