Sequence 18:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Review in progress. Please stand by. 20:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdfs:label
| - Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Copyright infringement
|
| rdfs:comment
| - Sequence 18:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Review in progress. Please stand by. 20:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
|
| dcterms:subject
| |
| Mcomment
| - Pretty good ideas overall. You just need to develop them a bit more.
|
| Pcomment
| - {| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="background-color: lightblue; border:solid red 3px; width: 100%;" align=center
- Certain pointers:
*Thank goodness, no lead-in quotes! I should mention here that you should always resist the urge to use lead-in quotes in an article.
*Most of the time, you probably want to right-justify your images, and you have for all but the very last one. That's good.
*For this article, maintain an encyclopaedic tone. Write in third person, and use vocabulary and sentence structure that would fit for an actual encyclopaedic entry. For the disclaimer, just say "This writer" instead of I, and something like "Please, do not sue somebody living in the basement of his parents' home who just wants to write an article about copyright infringement" -- although I'm sure you could come up with something far, far funnier .
*While I'm on that subject: the Disclaimer as is probably would fit better in a centre-aligned box of some sort, like the box I have placed just below the review table. The code for this is a tip I am borrowing from one of User:PuppyOnTheRadio's reviews:
|
| Icomment
| - The images are all right, and there's quite enough of them for the current length. Just a note for each, though:
#Do you really need the caption? You might want to consider not even having a caption for that one. Maybe don't put "thumb" in there.
#OK. Maybe bold it and make it red with Your text goes here, the result of which is Your text goes here.
#Makes a good point, and caption is adequate, although not great. Just right-justify it before doing anything else.
|
| Pscore
| |
| Ccomment
| - This is a very recognisable problem/vigilante justice programme that deserves a high-quality article on Uncyclopedia and needs to be made fun of ruthlessly. You're on a start, but, as I said above, you could expand a great deal. Make more fun of, say, the minstrels, the court cases, etc. This idea has a lot of potential, and a lot of it just hasn't been realised yet. Have you thought about saying stuff about "fair use"?
|
| Cscore
| |
| Mscore
| |
| Hcomment
| - Hello. I'll be your reviewer today, although I think I'm borrowing a good deal from User:Staircase's review format. For example, I am reviewing content of this article for humour by section:
#Whoops! Were you looking for YouTube? Nice touch.
#Intro. I have no idea what the basis of the first sentence could possibly be. Also, try to come up with a creative definition for the term, as saying something "was invented" when by whom is, strictly speaking, not a definition, but a fact. Try coming up with a humourous/satiric definition, and give it some thought. You may want to take a look at UN:HTBFANJS. Most other sentences here have good satiric points but are missing something that could make them more humourous. You may want to expand briefly on pirates as well -- maybe add half a sentence.
#Disclaimer. OK, nothing much you could do with this in my opinion. However, I have a complaint with the formatting, though this I will go over in a bit.
#History. Interesting fact, interesting fact, funny comparison, ... what's this? MAN-BEAR-PIG? OK, Sequence, I'm going to say this: avoid memes and tedious/explicit pop culture references. Man-bear-pig is a stagnant, overused joke which a good number of people no longer find funny when it's been so overused. The rest of that sentence was good, though. I also liked paragraph 3. Paragraph 4 wasn't quite funny, though I see the satiric point. Paragraph 5 was nicely satiric, although humour was weak there.
#Real life. I like how you are pointing out these absurdities with regards to copyright enforcement. Unfortunately, the only example that made me grin was the Waltzing Matilda example. Why? Well, I think you went to great lengths to expound upon, attack and make fun of this example. You could try doing the same for other examples, just in different styles. You could do so much more on the ringtone copyright infringement -- it's such an absurd example, but you've done very little satire on it.
#The fight. OK, a good deal of this is pure fact, except the second and last sentences. There's a lot of stuff that could be satirised here. You could develop a lot more stuff on the background and outcome of these cases in addition to what you have done here.
:General comment: read UN:HTBFANJS. I like how you went for satire rather than pure nonsense , but there's a lot more room for development here.
|
| Iscore
| |
| Hscore
| |
| Fcomment
| - I would recommend the folowing:
#Develop ideas. This is important for your article to be more satiric as well as humorous. Put more thought into making fun of your subject. Make sure to not devolve into nonsense or clichés. Read UN:HTBFANJS.
#Improve prose and formatting. You need to maintain an encyclopaedic tone, as if you were keeping a straight face while telling the funniest joke in the world . Right-justify your last image, box in the disclaimer, et cetera.
#Finally, only after you have done all of the above, tag the article with and have it proofread for you, so you don't have to do it yourself.
#Optional: Request another review for additional feedback after all of the above has been done.
If you have any questions whatsoever, do click here to ask them.
|
| dbkwik:uncyclopedi...iPageUsesTemplate
| |
| Signature
| |
| abstract
| - Sequence 18:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Review in progress. Please stand by. 20:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)