| Property | Value |
|---|
| rdfs:label | - Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:UNmarine777/Camp Refugee
|
| rdfs:comment | - UNmarine777 02:17, November 13, 2011 (UTC) I got it. Due to unforeseen circumstances I haven't been able to complete this, but I am working on it.
|
| dcterms:subject | |
| Mcomment | - Okay, so I said before to go back and develop your concept. Once you have your concept clear in mind go back over what you have written. If any sentence is not funny, or not related to your concept, kill it. If it relies on tired memes and overused jokes, kill it. If there is a joke in there but it's pretty lame, improve it, or kill it. Once you have a concept in mind you can strip back at least 90% of what you have there at the moment. If you are relying on for a joke, kill it. If you are relying on <s> for a joke, kill it.
Then, you should be left with half a dozen decent jokes and set-up lines. Expand what you have in those. But, more importantly than anything else, read HTBFANJS before you write any more. You need to know what works to make a funny first. Once you know that, you have something to start with.
|
| Pcomment | - Honestly don't even know where to start with this. Ignoring the ugliness that goes with and <s>, the article itself is pretty damned ugly. The formatting is all over the place and the use of images and text together has no logical flow. As a reader has to struggle through the miasma that you have created by not considering how it looks, this detracts from the humour.
What you have got in your favour is you have used only one really ugly template. Given that we have a significant selection of ugly templates to choose from, you've done well there. DO NOT USE UGLY TEMPLATES IN YOUR ARTICLES.
As for spelling, grammar, and general sentence structure - before you put something up for review in the future please run it through a spelling and grammar check.
|
| Icomment | - Poor choice of images, and those that have been photo shopped have been done extremely poorly. An image should be clear and obvious, and animated gifs are rarely a good inclusion into an article. 1 point as images have been included, and a second point as the images did sometimes relate to your text.
|
| Pscore | |
| Ccomment | - So, what can be done to turn this around? First thing is to revisit your concept - what is it that will make this funny? I can't tell you, but I can give you a couple of minor ideas.
* Make this an Unfomercial / camp brochure. Big glossy images of kids having fun. Bright colours. Your text, however, negates that feel. Things like Images of pool are artists rendition only. Pool completion expected in 2015 kind of thing. Nothing can be more fun and life affirming as an adventure, and every day is an adventure to find food.
* Make it an encyclopaedia entry. Talk the camp down by referring to outbreaks of malaria and missing campers, blah blah.
* Make the central concept that you are describing a refugee camp as an adventure camp. There is some of that in there - make that the crux of all of it.
Once you have a funny concept, you are halfway there.
|
| Cscore | |
| Mscore | |
| Hcomment | - I didn't get a single laugh out of this article. Regurgitated, stale jokes are unlikely to evoke any humour, and that's what this is. A myriad of tired jokes that should be left to die a dignified death. Read HTBFANJS, but in the meantime a few short points:
* Given that this is a parody of an encyclopaedia, try to give the article an encyclopaedic tone. Make it an article about the topic, not an advertisement for the topic. If you want to have this as an advertisement, make it an Unfomercial. But then it would then need to have the layout and feel of a tourist information brochure. Keep your framework in mind.
* Censored and strike-out jokes are very easy to do. In fact they are so easy that they have been done a million times before. That doesn't mean they can't be used again, but when you repeat the same joke constantly throughout the article - and the joke was stale before the article - it loses any potential impact. A little bit will do you. A lot of it will kill you.
* Pop-culture references and throwing in memes is old and overused. Michael Jackson is not likely to be part of the camp staff - if for no other reason then he is dead. Throwing him in there for a cheap Michael Jackson likes little boys joke is dull. Much the same with almost every other name you mention. You are trying to create a suspension of disbelief. The more of these you throw in there the harder it is to believe in anything you say, and it loses everything.
In short, you've tried to make a funny article, but you've ended up just throwing meme after meme, tired joke after tired joke. There is nothing funny in here at all. Even the concept of the horrible camp has been done to death.
|
| Iscore | |
| Hscore | |
| dbkwik:uncyclopedia/property/wikiPageUsesTemplate | |
| Signature | - PuppyOnTheRadio/sig2|1326723880
|
| abstract | - UNmarine777 02:17, November 13, 2011 (UTC) I got it. Due to unforeseen circumstances I haven't been able to complete this, but I am working on it.
|
