Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Categorise pages

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archived

Guidelines

FAQ

Pee Week

Committee

RotM

Why?:Categorise pages

I'll be honest; somewhere along the line I forgot what I was doing with this one. Anyway, what does it need? Does it completely suck? Will you believe me if I say it's not just vanity? 1234 ~ 21:09, 12 February 2011

I'll get it. --Black Flamingo 02:20, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Humour:	7	So, a funny article? Definitely. Is it as funny as it could be? I personally don't think so. I think the biggest issue here is that a lot of the time, rather than making jokes you're relying on the humour inherent in the situation for laughs. While this is fine, and did make me chuckle a few times, after a while the only joke seems to be that "people who add categories are a bit nuts", although there are also some good splashings of surreality in terms of the mental states they've been reduced to. I would personally like to see a couple more actual gags - nothing major, just two or three would do it. A really good example of you already doing this is when you have the categoriser say "it really does liven the place up", but then all the categories he adds are really morbid and serious. That was an excellent use of irony; make note of it, because I'd love to see more like this. In my opinion, a humour writer has always got to be looking for ways on how they can twist things and make them funny - like, every single line of the article must be considered for it's humour potential. Can you twist any of them at all, just to get even a small chuckle out of what is otherwise a serious sentence? Take a look at this line, as a random example, where you have the unconfident guy who really wants to be noticed suggest that he might "add some jokes, too". What kind of jokes exactly? A really bad one, maybe? There could be some humour in there. Or maybe he could do something so pathetic that it's humorous. In any case, have a think about it. And not just that line, but all the other lines. Can you get, for want of a better word, any "punchlines" in there? I also think you could go a little more in-depth with some of the humour, as I'm not sure you really get to grips with exactly what's funny about categories, nor their pointlessness. What I think would help is more references that readers can relate to. Say, for instance, if one of the contributors was bragging about adding "non-nude boobage" to 100 images in one morning. It's very obvious to the reader that this isn't a very worthwhile act, although the character would probably think it is (making it similar to the lovely bit of irony I discuss above). While I suppose this specific example might be veering towards meta-humour that only Uncyclopedians will appreciate, I'm sure you can think of something better - and funnier. It would just be nice to see more jabs at these people, apart from the fact that they've clearly gone insane, and also at the process in general. What else is funny about it? I'm thinking self-depreciating humour at the expense of those who have nothing better to do here.
Concept:	7	The concept is a strong one, I particularly like the idea of interviewing the people who categorise to support its view. It's a rather unique approach to the Why? format too, which like its more-handsome brother HowTo can get stale very easily. The only problem here on in is with the characters themselves, some of which are underdeveloped or samey. I'll take you through my thoughts on them one at a time. Blood splattered overalls - There's little to say about this guy really. He sets the scene well, he's weird but not too weird, you realise something's wrong with these people but you're not sure what yet, and you get a great joke in there. Moving on... Moustache guy – To be honest I didn't really get what he was supposed to be. I suppose the biggest problem is that he's quite similar to a lot of the others, and not really remarkable on his own. The only thing he really has going for him is his social awkwardness, but all the others do this to a much better degree. Perhaps a reworking is in order? I'll talk more about alternatives at the end. Sleep deprived midget – This was a good one. An easily recognisable stereotype from the world of categorising, and also broad enough so even unregistered users who know fuck all about running a wiki will appreciate it. In terms of characterisation you probably shouldn't change anything here, although as I say in humour it might be worth trying to get another straight-up gag in there if you can. Elf - While like the elf character, I didn't really get it. My guess is you’re implying something about the madness categorising can cause, but like I say, this is a guess, I also entertained the notion that you’re just being deliberately surreal without reason. Whatever the case, I do like the character, and think you should make it clear that this character is basically the husk of a burnt out categoriser. That would fully plant her(?) within the world of the article without actually changing the character itself, which is already quite funny. Guy who wants award – I think that this character is a great idea, again because he's a recognisable type that unregistered users should be also able to read without being alienated. However, you need to do a little more than just have him say over and over that he’s pathetic. Try to develop him a little more, details about what he's done, maybe flashes of his real life, hints of his interaction with other users. What else has he tried to do? Has he tried writing, but obviously never “made it”? So what to do? I'm not suggesting you add a whole bunch of new characters or anything, but perhaps the reworking of one or two would help, and maybe even the altogether replacement of another. It's up to you of course, but I personally would like to see more typical and believable characters here. Why not interview somebody who doesn't really bother with categorising? One of these lazy users who's just here for the fun and doesn't really help out with maintenance; a laid-back anarchist with little regard for the workings of the site. We have a lot of those, and I'm sure you can keep it from being in-jokey. Or perhaps someone who doesn't really understand the technical side of it (think of me when I update the pee list) And finally, how about someone who likes to be rather less serious in their categorising? You know, the way people like to add random crap sometimes? Although there's a lot of suggestions there, it doesn't reflect on the quality of the characters you already have - most of whom could be easily fixed by simply tying them into the core concept a little better. The only one I would really suggest you replace is the moustache guy, although it still may not require something that drastic. These are just some ideas for you, have a think about what you can do with them.
Prose and formatting:	10	Once again you display an incredibly confident and grammatically-accurate writing style. Seriously, are you a writer in real life? If not, why not? The formatting is also pretty good; you have a knack for finding nice fonts and colours. If this was by any other user it would probably end up looking a little garish or scruffy, but no, you keep it tasteful and attractive. Maybe you really are a girl... My only problem really is that the font for the elf is impossible to read. It's too small and - what's the word - seriffy? Try making it bigger, that might help.
Images:	6	Your images are all good, although to be honest most of the points here are for the Ann Hathaway one. Saved that to my hard drive as soon as I saw it. Anyway, about the others. The first one is ok but I think it might be bemusing to those who don't realise that categories is oft-shortened to "cats". Perhaps some reference to this fact would help? The only other thing I really have to say is that you should have an image for every character. A lot of them felt underdeveloped and I think illustrations would really help. Try to make them more relevant too, because the guy with the big moustache just seemed meaningless at best and a cheap visual gag at worst. I'm not saying you have to be totally realistic, but some logical traits to their appearance would aid you in their characterisation.
Miscellaneous:	7.5	The number of women I tell people I've slept with.
Final Score:	37.5	So overall another nice piece which could just use a bit more funny, and maybe a bit of a cleanup in terms of characterisation. A future feature? I most certainly think so, but I really would like to see a bit more work put into it first. Having read every review I've ever done, you know the rest...
Reviewer:	--Black Flamingo 13:24, February 26, 2011 (UTC)