PyramidHead88 David 01:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Ow. If I had teachers like you in high school, I'm sure I would have topped myself by now. Which is not to say you're wrong. Yes, it has its weaknesses, and many of the points you raise are valid... but you seem to be rather hung up on the lack of a satirical angle. I'm as much a fan of satire as anyone, but Uncyclopedia is not an exclusively satirical site - there's room for other types of humour. Still, thanks for taking the time out to review it, and forgive me if I'm a little too dispirited to do any major work on it. Who'd want to be a comedian? --PyramidHead88 David 13:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdfs:label
| - Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Nauru
|
| rdfs:comment
| - PyramidHead88 David 01:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Ow. If I had teachers like you in high school, I'm sure I would have topped myself by now. Which is not to say you're wrong. Yes, it has its weaknesses, and many of the points you raise are valid... but you seem to be rather hung up on the lack of a satirical angle. I'm as much a fan of satire as anyone, but Uncyclopedia is not an exclusively satirical site - there's room for other types of humour. Still, thanks for taking the time out to review it, and forgive me if I'm a little too dispirited to do any major work on it. Who'd want to be a comedian? --PyramidHead88 David 13:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
|
| dcterms:subject
| |
| Mcomment
| - Averaged and dropped, because there is actually more wrong with this than just the specifics above. Obviously the randomness is the killer here, but I think more importantly, I drop this below the average slightly because of the potential for true satire that is not explored.
|
| Pcomment
| - Your formatting is very weak. The 4 is for good, proper spelling and grammar. The article formatting, however, is poor. The sections are too short for the large headers.
|
| Icomment
| - The images are not funny at all. The first one is forced, poorly and randomly, into being related to the subject at hand. The second one is random and unfunny. The flag image itself could be amusing with a good caption or related text, but here it is bland. The Modern Art joke has potential, but I don't feel it is well told here. "[T]he only national flag in existence that doubles as modern art" is almost funny, but somehow not quite. Maybe something more sophisticated, like "The flag of Nauru not only fosters Nauruans' nationalist pride, but also their modern art elitist pride." Or something.
|
| Pscore
| |
| Ccomment
| - The five is for the fact that Nauru is a viable subject to satirize. But it is not well executed here.
|
| Cscore
| |
| Mscore
| |
| Hcomment
| |
| Iscore
| |
| Hscore
| |
| Fcomment
| - I strongly encourage you to read HTBFANJS, especially the stuff about randomness. If you can look at that and understand the issues , your language skills are good, so you could be a great humorist here.
|
| dbkwik:uncyclopedi...iPageUsesTemplate
| |
| Signature
| |
| abstract
| - PyramidHead88 David 01:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Ow. If I had teachers like you in high school, I'm sure I would have topped myself by now. Which is not to say you're wrong. Yes, it has its weaknesses, and many of the points you raise are valid... but you seem to be rather hung up on the lack of a satirical angle. I'm as much a fan of satire as anyone, but Uncyclopedia is not an exclusively satirical site - there's room for other types of humour. Still, thanks for taking the time out to review it, and forgive me if I'm a little too dispirited to do any major work on it. Who'd want to be a comedian? --PyramidHead88 David 13:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Certainly, there is room for other types of humor besides satire, it's true. In fact, often "very clever" works as a substitute for "very funny". But in my short experience here, I have learned nothing if not that this kind of randomness is an especial no-no. --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 17:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)