Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnBooks:September 11th, Two-Thousand-and-FUN!
UnBooks:September 11th, Two-Thousand-and-FUN![edit]
Here is my new article that I have made. There is only 1 picture in this article for now, since I'm waiting for my pictures at RadicalX's Corner. But hopefully, it shouldn't really matter.
Lucyfer & his friend, Wlado! 19:26, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
 |
PEE REVIEW IN PROGRESS of giving you his opinion and pretending you care. |
| Humour: | 2 | Hey, Lucyfer and Waldo.
There's really no point in doing a section-by-section review of this, since the article is so uniform in its message and tone. So I'm going to go straight to concept and talk about that. |
| Concept: | 2 | The concept of this article is to take a version of 9/11 conspiracy theories - one of the most extreme versions, to be sure, but one that does exist and that some people believe - and then to present it to us.
And that's really what you do. You present it. You don't really poke fun at it. You don't really poke fun at people who believe the original story. You don't really embellish upon the theories. You don't add misdirection. You don't do anything to surprise us. You just... present the conspiracy theory. "Here it is." I'm not sure how that's even supposed to be comedy. It doesn't fall into any of the categories of comedy. It's not satire, it's not taboo, it's not slapstick, it's not misdirection, it's not unexpected... it's just... a recounting of what a handful of paranoid people believe. Maybe the idea is that the subject matter is inherently funny so presenting it to us is therefore inherently funny. But I don't think that works. You can't really just fork a Wikipedia article about something inherently funny, like Wikipedia:Tarrare, change none of the facts, and expect that it will serve as a parody of Wikipedia. Is the comedy supposed to be inherent in the fact that some of the language is overexcited or that the case is stated too strongly? I mean... I can't even figure out what's supposed to make me smile in this. |
| Prose and formatting: | 1 | The prose of this article is utterly, fatally broken. And it's the worst thing about the article. You should consider reading this one out loud, because some of these mistakes are so obvious and so easily preventable. And don't be shy about putting a {{proofread}} template on your article, so another pair of eyes can give it a good look.
Consider this sentence: "Remember those times when we discovered that these "terrorists" have caused that attack; and that Osama Bin Laden chieftain behind this mastermind?" What does "and that Osama Bin Laden chieftain behind this mastermind" mean? There's no verb in the sentence (did you mean he "was the" chieftain?) - but more to the point, why would there be a chieftain behind a mastermind? Isn't he supposed to be the mastermind? Or did you mean "these masterminds," referring to "terrorists?" There are so many other idiosyncracies here. "He was smoking large pounds of marijuana" - how can a pound of marijuana be large? It's one pound. "act like derailed terrorists" - terrorists who have fallen off the rails of a train? Did you mean "deranged"? "The elitists' plan have succeeded; as now in 21st Century, would be the first step into taking over the United Stats and inevitably in the future; the entire world." - I mean, seriously, read that out loud. "So then the country would throw itself into a region which would seem like a lifetime" - how can space seem like time? "There has been many criticisms regarding about rather if the Twin Towers were actually destroyed by terrorists" - again, say that out loud, and I think you'll immediately see how very, very wrong it is. |
| Images: | 7 | The pictures are okay, although they're too small. They're appropriate, and if you Photoshopped them yourself - I can't tell - then I appreciate you going to the effort. There should probably be a "main picture" to illustrate the article, at the upper right corner of the article itself. That's pretty standard around here, and you should probably only skip it if you have a good reason to. For an UnBook, it's popular to 'shop yourself a book cover. |
| Miscellaneous: | 3 | Three. |
| Final Score: | 15 | If you're going to make fun of 9/11 conspiracy theories, you really have to make fun of 9/11 conspiracy theories. The article Jaws did WTC does a good job of that: it has a concept (that some conspiracy theories are so out there that they're no less silly than the belief that an animatronic shark blew up the world trade center) paired with a pun ("Jaws" versus "Jews.")
This article needs a concept. Sorry about the negative review. I hope at some point you get a flash of inspiration about how to rewrite this to fit some kind of satiric concept. Best of luck to you! |
| Reviewer: |  pillow talk 02:25, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
| |