| Property | Value |
|---|
| rdfs:label | - Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/OhInternet
|
| rdfs:comment | - 20:12, April 22, 2011 (UTC) I'll get it. -- 13:41, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
|
| dcterms:subject | |
| Mcomment | |
| Pcomment | |
| Icomment | - There are none, so it's a zero here. Sorry. Part of what I was saying before about obscurity is relevant here - you could very easily clear up a lot of what you're talking about by illustrating it visually. Whatever the case you obviously need a few pics, preferably of the site, although it would be nice to see some diversity in the images, perhaps if you could find some of the people involved? I guess it's hard to illustrate an article about a website.
|
| Pscore | |
| Ccomment | - Again, the main issue here is a lack of development. You have very little concept; the piece mostly reads like a genuine encyclopaedic entry but not quite as professionally written. At times it feels like a news piece, particularly towards the end with phrases like "the success of this venture remains to be seen". If you want to keep the style you have now, you're going to have to get more jokes in there . A great article that takes an approach as similarly truthful as yours is this one, but its lack of "angle" and simple retelling of the facts doesn't make it any less hilarious. Note how nearly every sentence has a terrific punchline in there somewhere, this is the kind of joke-ratio you need to be aiming for with an approach like this. Alternatively you could develop more of an angle, the old "written in the style of that person" approach, for example. It's up to you of course, but either way the concept needs tightening. It probably needs expanding upon too - you don't really talk about what OhInternet does, instead focussing on what ED used to do that OhInternet doesn't. Generally, you talk about loads of things without every really explaining what they are, like this WhatPort thing, which I've never heard of. You could probably explain just about everything you mention in more detail, which would also help with the stubbiness of the piece if you did.
|
| Cscore | |
| Mscore | |
| Hcomment | - The style of humour you have here is a little underdeveloped at present, at least in my opinion. You go for a fairly straight approach, which is all fine and dandy of course except for the fact that you don't actually have that much in the way of actual jokes. What you have, for the most part anyway, is a truthful rendition of what actually happened written in a varyingly informal tone. There is, however, a difference between telling jokes and just talking about something in an un-serious manner. The only humour technique you really utilise for laughs is the odd "cutting aside" to the reader, such as "which explains a lot when you think about it" and "i.e. about 99% of ED's content", and other little comments like that. A lot of these jokes are parenthetical - you can see them coming, often they're in brackets. The problem is, jokes like this have no flow and tend to be a bit predictable. Even if the content of the joke is funny you're unlikely to laugh because there's no set-up, and without a steady flow there's nothing to pull you in Let me give you some examples of what I'm talking about. It's funnier to say "John Candy was a kind man, the size of his heart was comparable only to the size of his stomach" than it is to say "John Candy has a big heart " - if you see what I mean? While not a hilarious example, I hope it demonstrates how unexpected twists and misdirection are far more successful techniques than just adding a humorous observation at the end of a sentence with no build-up. Although the repeated line "except if it attracts advertisers" is quite good; an exception to the rule, no doubt.
|
| Iscore | |
| Hscore | |
| Fcomment | - In my opinion you've got a decent start here, it could just use some development. If you're going to stick with the straight approach you're going to have to get a lot more gags in there. Otherwise it might be worth finding an interesting angle to approach it from. You definitely need to get some images in there too. If there's anything I've said here that you want me to explain better, or if you want my opinion on anything I might have missed, please let me know on my talky page and I'll try to help. Keep up the good work and I hope the review is ok.
|
| dbkwik:uncyclopedia/property/wikiPageUsesTemplate | |
| Signature | |
| abstract | - 20:12, April 22, 2011 (UTC) I'll get it. -- 13:41, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
|
