| Property | Value |
|---|
| rdfs:label | - Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Macintosh (quick)
|
| rdfs:comment | - GarethPW 19:07, February 12, 2012 (UTC) I'll take a look at this one for you. 24 hours at the longest. -- 14:08, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
|
| dcterms:subject | |
| Mcomment | - My overall grade of the article.
|
| Pcomment | - Your formatting is alright, to be honest I don't think you need be too concerned about how it looks at the moment since if you add more to the article the images will fit much more nicely into the article and you won't be messing about with moving anything too much. Your spelling and grammar is fine, and your main issue as repeatedly mentioned above is content and style.
|
| Icomment | - You have selected some good images and I wouldn't change any of them unless you choose to drastically alter the concept. As it is I was impressed with the images you had chosen, they fit well with the concept and suggest to me that you perhaps decided on the concept having looked at one or other of these images rather than the other way round. As it is the images are fine, they are generally relevant and they are captioned well. My only advice here is that you pay attention to your captions if you make any changes to the text, captions should ideally provide a link between the image and the text and their importance should not be forgotten. Take the caption on the icloud image, you could say something like "iCloud is incompatible with almost all biscuits." this would give you the opportunity to make another joke and get an added laugh from the image. Bear this in mind when you look at changes.
|
| Pscore | |
| Ccomment | - There's nothing particularly wrong here, the main issue is that I'm uncertain whether the concept you have chosen is the best one. When I first read it I was anticipating an article on Mackintoshes, I certainly hadn't anticipated biscuits/cookies. Your approach is certainly not without merit, the main issue at the moment is that it isn't really working, as I've mentioned at great length. If you are struggling to think of jokes changing your concept may open up some new directions for your article. The very best thing for you to do is check out some of our featured articles, see what the authors of those articles do and think about why it's funny. Then experiment with different styles for your article, everybody writes differently and you need to decide how you feel your humour will manifest best. Don't be afraid of experimenting with completely new ways of approaching the article and if you are really unsure there are plenty of people who would be more than happy to help you out.
|
| Cscore | |
| Mscore | |
| Hcomment | - Right, before I even get going with this one I want you to understand that my function here is not to provide a page of damning prose and sneering criticism. Anything that I say below is intended to assist you in writing an excellent article which I would be proud to steal and then present as my own. My first impression on finishing your article was that you aren't by any means bad at writing, what you have at the moment is presented fine, my problem lies with the concept and the execution therein. The concept here essentially being that a Macintosh is a biscuit as opposed to a computer or a waterproof jacket. The main problem is that this is where the humour ends and this doesn't provide much in the way of lasting entertainment to the reader. Permit me to expand: if I were to write an article on Darth Vader and rather than say that he is one of the primary antagonists in the Star Wars films, I were to say that he was a famous Ice Skater and simply go into detail about the imaginary competitions he had won, it would be unlikely to provide much in the way of humour to someone wanting to read a humorous article about Darth Vader. Such is the case with your article, we do have articles on Apple so I can see why you'd wish to utilise a different take on the subject but the way you have done it simply doesn't work particularly well. Silliness is all well and good and you will find articles on Uncyclopedia that are written about well known subjects but are actually about something completely different. If you look at Anal Sex or iPad you'll find examples of the above. However the difference as you will observe is that these articles have something from which to base their silliness, nonsense is best used when it is coming from a factual background, if you are just typing your imaginings onto a page then you aren't really writing humour, you're writing nonsense and hoping it might be humorous. There's an excellent section on this in HTBFANJS which I would strongly recommend that you check out before you have a second go at this. I would encourage you not to feel disheartened by this, I regularly ask people to look at HTBFANJS and going overboard on silliness is a very common mistake amongst newer users, I even got banned for it in my early days on the site.
My recommendation would be that you either consider a slightly easier to adapt concept or you make sure that you are writing about an actual feature of a Macintosh then add the silliness. For instance say something like "The Macintosh has long been a favourite amongst Apple customers; who cite its unparalleled user friendliness and slight hazelnut after-taste as motivating factors". Now I don't claim that what I have written there is a newly mined piece of comedy gold, but I think that it's a good style for you to consider. You demonstrate that you are able to do this with the section title "Macbook 78.1% Nitrogen, 20.9% Oxygen, 0.9% Argon, 0.03% Carbon dioxide, 0.002% Neon, 0.0005% Helium, 0.0002% Methane, 0.0001% Krypton, 0.00005% Hydogen,0.000009% Xenon Air". That kind of humour will pay far more dividends than simply writing made up imaginings. You should also try to think of what people who read your article are looking to read. Ask yourself, when you go to the article Earth do you want to read a humorous commentary on what Earth is and what it is for, or would you like to read an article that is based on the premise that Earth is in fact made of cheese, and has several sections discussing the composition of each layer? This is an extreme example but I hope it makes my point clear. The part than frustrates me is that there is potential here but the good parts are being choked by silliness, have another look at try to redress the balance.
My final point in this regard is that the article is too short, length isn't necessarily essential but there's loads of places you could take this article and my feeling is that you aren't getting everything you can out of the topic. I'll refrain from any further tips on your humour as I think there is quite enough here for you to be going on with. If you are wanting any specific advice then feel free to ask me directly and I'll be more than happy to help you.
|
| Iscore | |
| Hscore | |
| Fcomment | - Don't be disheartened by the low score, everybody has to have early attempts and not every article you write will get all tens right from the word go. You need to take a second look at your humour and your concept and you need to decide where you want the article to end up. Do your best to cut down on the nonsense, make sure nonsense comes from a factual basis rather than simply coming from more nonsense. You have the definite ability and potential to do much better so I'd encourage you to take a second look at this and bear my advice in mind. I cannot recommend HTBFANJS to you enough, it will help you avoid a lot of the pit falls that are common to newer users and will save you receiving unnecessary advice in any future reviews. If you disagree with anything that I have said, if you feel I have missed the point of the article or you have questions then feel free to get in touch with me via my talk page and I'll do my best to help. I hope you carry on working at this one. Good luck making any changes.
|
| dbkwik:uncyclopedia/property/wikiPageUsesTemplate | |
| Signature | |
| abstract | - GarethPW 19:07, February 12, 2012 (UTC) I'll take a look at this one for you. 24 hours at the longest. -- 14:08, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
|
