Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Sycamore/Global Village

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archived

Guidelines

FAQ

Pee Week

Committee

RotM

Global Village

This has been a pretty quick article to do, Its had a fiar bit done by Mhaille and myself. I've tried to keep it sharp and accessible even if readers have not heard of the topic before. Thanks for having a look:) — Sir Sycamore (talk) 14:44, 15 October 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).

So help me, let's do this. --UU - natter 19:15, Dec 3

Humour:	7	Oh man, this is so hard to call for me. As I said, I've deliberately held off reviewing this a couple of times, largely because it's so hard for me to really define how I feel about it. Best summation I can give is that I think it's clever, and for the greatest part well written, but for me it's a little short on actual laughs. I read through, impressed by the idea, and what you're taking on, by the creative linking (which I suspect without checking the history shows the hand of Mhaille, always good for an interesting link) and so forth. But I chuckled in far fewer places than I hoped to, and that's the size of it. I can probably list most of them. Let's have a go. "Scottish know-it-all pricks" got a smirk, but possibly partly because I knew who wrote the article; I liked "Marconi’s inventions were the first forms of communication in human history which didn't involve shouting or waving your arms around erratically." - although I have to ask if you're including writing under 'waving your arms about erratically' there; "sensibly crushed by aristocracy in previous eras" got a twitch; the quote at the start of the "The Village" section was the first real chuckle - although I feel this is the only point you really touch on it, possibly a waste; chain stores got a wry nod; porn and shock got a wry smile; the final section about America kept a grin going, that was quite nicely sustained; and I liked the subtle nods here and there towards gossip - again possibly under-emphasised. And the rest drew nods of appreciation for the smart writing and nifty allusions, but no real laughs as such. This article is one that I really want to like a bit more than I do, and for that, it needs a bit more funny - possibly not at the expense of the clever, but a few more obvious gags nonetheless. I don't think it'll take much, just a little crack here and there to spice the thing a little more. I realise that skates a little close to "be more funnierer" territory, but I think with the writers involved you're capable of that yourselves. If you want some specific suggestions, give me a yell.
Concept:	8	Hard to find fault with it really, a good idea, and I like the approach in general, it just needs more laug... I've made that point. I'll say no more here.
Prose and formatting:	8	As I say, well written for the most part. Just a couple of bits, but I'm picky. "The village has achieved most of it achievement thorough American concerns" - this contains most of 'em, actually. "It" should be "its"; "achievement" should be pluralised, and anyway "achieved" and "achievements" in the same sentence feels clumsy, try "attained", "realised" or something; and "thorough" should be "through". The other thing is the use of "mediums" thoughout as the plural of medium. This is only correct if the medium in question is the type who claims to talk to the dead. The plural of any other meaning of medium is media. Formatting, needless to say, is fine.
Images:	7	Probably about the right number, given the space taken up by the third, captioned well to be relevant, and generally well used. Again, they don't really add many laughs beyond the creative linking in the captions though.
Miscellaneous:	7.8	Averaged.
Final Score:	37.8	This feels like a really wwishy-washy review, and what's worse is I can't decide if the score is generous or slightly harsh. At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, I admire this article, but it doesn't amuse me enough. Without altering the concept or even the structure unduly, a few extra more obvious laughs are what I was craving, and I can't put it much clearer than that. You know the drill by now: only my opinion, others available, good luck etc. Hope this has been of some help, even if it's not much.
Reviewer:	--UU - natter 19:55, Dec 3