| Property | Value |
|---|
| rdfs:label | - Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Gay Hitler (quick)
|
| rdfs:comment | - Änjelajs 13:39, February 10, 2012 (UTC) Okay - it'll be a quickie though.
|
| dcterms:subject | |
| Mcomment | - All in all, it was bad. Having said that, you show the capacity to be good.
Suggested reading for you:
* User:Aleister_in_Chains/Homophones_(grammar) - gay jokes done well
* User:PuppyOnTheRadio/Big Butte Creek - Double entendré done cleverly
* HTBFANJS - unless you're a natural, a fantastic place to learn how to be funny
|
| Pcomment | - Your formatting is ugly. It is difficult to read and cluttered with templates, images and quotes at the start, then becomes short sections that don't seem to read smoothly into each other, and then ugly formatting and over-large image at the end, along with four YouTube links.
Oh - linking to YouTube videos doesn't ever help you. All it suggests is that you can't be funny yourself. Unless you made the clips, don't add them.
Your spelling and grammar shows that you haven't spell checked this at all, let alone proof read it. A good article takes time. Once you have written something, re-read it and make sure it works. Otherwise 97% of the time, it won't.
|
| Icomment | - Unoriginal, badly chopped images. Annoying animations that don't work properly. Badly formatted. Actually, there is nothing positive I can say about any of them. The only one I would consider using myself is the woman at the end, and definitely not on the context or with that caption.
|
| Pscore | |
| Ccomment | - ...concept. Ideally a concept for an article should be original and should be accessible to a broader audience. Gay jokes will alienate a significant percentage of your audience. Hitler jokes will also alienate a significant portion of your audience - people will be possibly offended, or ignorant, and you'll lose them. Mel Brooks, one of the funniest men in Hollywood, was responsible for a huge number of successful comedic movies. One of his least successful was To be or not to be, and a significant portion of the reason why was the Hitler issue. Charlie Chaplin also had huge issues with The great dictator - possibly my favorite of his films - for exactly the same reason.
So you have managed to alienate or insult your audience before you've built it on the name of the article alone. To keep your audience on side you need to wow them with wit and insight from the first sentence. If you can't twist it around at that point, you have lost most of the audience you have remaining.
My advice on this article at this stage - quit it. There are points in here that show you have some comedic talent. It is a very slapstick style, maybe, and has a lot of double entendré and crass humor at it's heart, but that doesn't make it bad.
After all, that's what makes "Jackass" and "Punk'd" successful.
|
| Cscore | |
| Mscore | |
| Hcomment | - I didn't laugh once. The concept is dull and unoriginal. Given this definite issue with the basic premise, the writing has to be fantastic to be able to carry the article to higher ground. So breaking it down to bite size chunks:
Lede quotes are rarely funny. In rare cases an article can get away with two brilliant lede quotes, or potentially have four or five there that pop up on a random basis, with only two at a time showing. I cannot recall a feature in the last three years or so that has had more than one lede quote. None of these are strong, and if I chanced on a page with this many, my first thought would be to check if it's QVFD worthy.
Gay jokes have not been considered funny since the 80's, except in a very roundabout way. Trying to make something funny by saying He's a ghey faggot is not likely to make many people laugh. Jokes from a gay perspective can be funny, but it's hard for a straight person to pull it off.
Self-referential humour is fine, but not if it breaks the fourth wall. Being a parody on an encyclopedia an article should ideally be encyclopaedic - making a reference to the fact an article has an author within an article, or even making a reference to people's perceptions on an article in an article, break this tone.
Given this is a quick review I'm stopping there. Note that this hasn't gotten to the "Background" section yet. There are big problems with the humour so far, and that is due to your...
|
| Iscore | |
| Hscore | |
| Fcomment | - I would love to see you working with experienced users whose work you admire to start with. Rely on the community here - nobody wants to see you fail, and most people would be happy to lend a hand.
|
| dbkwik:uncyclopedia/property/wikiPageUsesTemplate | |
| Signature | - PuppyOnTheRadio/sig2|1329137467
|
| abstract | - Änjelajs 13:39, February 10, 2012 (UTC) Okay - it'll be a quickie though.
|
