| Property | Value |
|---|
| rdfs:label | - Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnNews:Old people more likely to die, study shows (revised)
|
| rdfs:comment | - -- 02:30, April 15, 2011 (UTC) I'll give it a go. Tomorrow at the latest. -- 21:06, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
|
| dcterms:subject | |
| Mcomment | |
| Pcomment | - There are a couple of issues here two, which I will list. It’s mostly just bits of prose that are either hard to follow or that could flow better.
*"It was the death of Bertha Madeline "Bobcat" Swanson on Tuesday that brought scientists at the Mayo Clinic to the conclusion that old people are more likely to die" – This seems a strange opener for an UnNews. Granted, it has all the relevant info in there, it's the way you start "half way through" the explanation that makes it look more like you're telling a story than telling the news. A news story would probably read like this; "Scientists at The Mayo Clinic came to the conclusion today that old people are more likely to die, etc." News doesn’t use fancy writing, it’s just as plain and neutral as possible It's up to you what you do here of course, I'm just pointing out the convention; feel free to ignore it.
*"The study began three years ago, after the death of five old people at The Shadyside old folks home within the same week suggested that the elderly might be the soonest to go" - This gets a bit hard to follow, and I found myself having to go back and read it again. Try substituting "after" for "when", that should sort it out a little. However that won't change the fact that the sentence goes on just a little bit too long.
*The quote from Lisa Garber feels a tad scruffy too. First of all she's talking about feeling lost now the studies have ended, then she suddenly says she's glad the old woman finally died. Then she goes back to her feeling of emptiness. This is a bit of a leap from topic to topic. You should probably take another look at the whole quote, and see if you can clear up this "jumpiness".
*The writing also gets a bit confused where you say "the last person in the young adult was on the rise, after a head injury, but died this morning after an accidental Morphine overdose". First of all, what do you mean by the "last person"? Secondly, the way you introduce this doesn't make sense. It's too ambiguous because you haven't gone into detail yet. You start by saying he was "on the rise", but without reference to his head injury the reader has no idea what you mean by this. Introduce the facts first, say he had a head injury and then put in the subclauses about morphine and recovery.
That's it for prose really. The formatting does look a bit off too though, you might want to give the images a bit of a shuffle around; make sure they're not breaking paragraphs or leaving too much white space .
|
| Icomment | - The two images you have are ok, I suppose the only thing you could probably do better is make it so the one of the woman isn't so blatantly sexploitative. It's not particularly funny to just have a picture of a hot woman, although it is a trap I've fallen into many times myself. The caption could probably do with work too. It doesn't really make a joke other than "she's hot", and doesn't make much sense either - why would there be a picture of her getting ready for the interview? Perhaps an image of an old person would be more appropriate? I'll leave that with you...
|
| Pscore | |
| Ccomment | - Like I said, it's a good one. The headline alone is hilarious. The only problem is that the title was probably the funniest part. Hopefully my advice in humour will help you readdress the balance.
|
| Cscore | |
| Mscore | |
| Hcomment | - Hi Magic. So this is a pretty good article you've got here. When I read it though, there were one to two things that niggled at me, if you'll indulge me.
There isn't really much humour based around the subject matter, a lot of it is tangential stuff. The first proper joke I noticed is the one about them having a party when she died. Ok, that was pretty funny, but it could be better executed. First off, get rid of the brackets. Nothing says "here comes a punchline!" like brackets, and you want your reader to be surprised by it. The way you word it is a bit clumsy too; just try to write the way people speak - try reading it aloud to yourself if that helps. I would go with something like "although in hindsight it might not have been appropriate to have a party", because that's quite subtle and realistic-sounding. Remember, scientists are generally clever people, their speech needs to match this, and can't be so clumsy.
Another joke that stuck out was the one about the guy who died of a "midlife crisis". This is a bit vague. How exactly does a midlife crisis kill somebody? Most guys I know just go paragliding or something like that.
The joke about the scientists killing the young adult falls a little bit flat in my opinion too. The biggest issue is that I can't figure out why they would plausibly do this. What could they possibly have to gain from it? The whole "shady murderer" approach lacks subtlety too. Is there any way you can suggest they've had him killed without it being so obvious? For example, perhaps when you interview the kid there could be a shady looking man standing beside him. Then you could say something like "the shady man refused to comment, but when our reporter came back from his cigarette break Jonathan White was dead". While that's not a hilarious line I hope it illustrates what I mean when I say be more subtle.
These pills that they're asking for to fight ageing, surely you can get more out of that too? It seems like a bit of a random, throwaway reference right now. Wouldn't such a medicine technically be the fabled Elixir of Life that grants immortality? Perhaps a joke about how alchemists have been working on it for thousands of years, and it should be ready any day now?
Anyway, I said something about tangents... My main suggestion here would just be to develop the idea a little more. It's a great idea, but there are missed opportunities, I feel. The core joke is the fact that scientists are once again stating the obvious, and wasting time and money doing it. What else can you get out of this? Were the public "astounded" at the findings? Was it the biggest find since their breakthrough conclusion that bears shit in the woods? Exactly what kind of "proof" do they have for the whole thing? That's another thing it's lacking; an explanation. I know it's obvious that old people die because they're old, but if this were a real news piece there would be a bit were they try to explain in layman's terms why old people are more likely to die. You know what I'm saying? Read some of our featured UnNewses, that might generate some ideas in terms of getting more content in there.
|
| Iscore | |
| Hscore | |
| Fcomment | - So overall this is a really good idea that I would say just needs a little bit more work. Sort out some of the issues with the prose and see if you can expand it a little and it should be in great shape in no time. As usual, drop by my talk page if you have any more questions, need more help, or simply want to thank/abuse me. I hope the review was ok... err... I mean, my reviews are the best! Pee review is my bitch!
|
| dbkwik:uncyclopedia/property/wikiPageUsesTemplate | |
| Signature | |
| abstract | - -- 02:30, April 15, 2011 (UTC) I'll give it a go. Tomorrow at the latest. -- 21:06, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
|
