Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Green Cross Code
Green Cross Code[edit source]
Want to sponge out something. mAttlobster. (hello) 23:44, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
| Humour: | 5 | Ok, what you have here is a decent article that falls apart slightly as it goes on. The first half of it is ok really, but after that it quickly descends into randomness. Let's start from this middle point, and I'll talk you through section by section
In the "Green Cross Code Man" section the article starts to feel a little forced. The humour becomes a lot sillier than the previous few sections, which have mostly dealt with the background to the code in a more serious, satirical way. The biggest issue here is your characterisation of the Green Cross Code Man. Having him shout and swear at the kids doesn't really work in my opinion, it's a characterisation that's not backed up by reality. You do manage to get a decent laugh out of it when you refer to shock tactics though, so I'm not saying you should delete it all. I'm thinking that it might be funnier if you don't actually put the "what the fuck" line in there, and just allude to the fact that he exclaims profanities upon seeing kids trying to cross the road. Swearing suddenly out of nowhere is rarely funny, but if you could imply that this strange man is going around swearing at kids - that could be funny. Another problem here is that the joke about this abusive Green Cross Code man is a bit unconvincing. What you could do to fix this is have him be pleasant and helpful at first (like he was in real life) but then after the campaign finishes and he is dropped from the adverts he loses it and becomes this profane character you describe. This could be really funny, you could have him still trying to help kids cross the road but not being very good at it. This would make more sense when he shouts and swears at them. Also, just as a side note on this section, why is "youths" in inverted commas? Are you implying they're not youths? There is some more decent stuff in the "SPLINK" section, but again the randomness also increases, and the article starts feeling less focussed. I really liked the bit about Jon Pertwee losing a wing mirror. I think you should try to establish him not just as an actor but also as a motoring enthusiast (which he was), just for those younger or foreign readers who have no idea who he is. I also think you need to do more to confirm SPLINK's existence. It doesn't really sound like a real thing here, despite the fact that it is. A lot of readers will probably dismiss it as something silly and made up. Make a clear reference to the fact that it was actually on television, and that it was never actually explained what on Earth SPLINK meant (perhaps even have a bit where they try to explain what it does mean, but present it all as vague speculation that isn't at all convincing). What doesn't help is that there's also a fair bit of randomness in here, most of which doesn't really work. The autobiography title, for instance, is kind of funny, but where it is now it comes out of nowhere and only serves to ruin the flow. I'd perhaps just put a footnote here, after the quote, and use the book title at the bottom under "References" (I hope that makes sense). I also wouldn't bother with the line about Worzel Gummidge, it's another really esoteric reference and not a hugely funny one at that. Then, your "Pre-Green Cross Code" section is definitely the weakest; it's pretty much random all the way through and is not a particularly good ending to the article. The key joke at work here is that Tufty Fluffer is homophobic, which leads to some juvenile and unimaginative gay jokes. Again it's also quite esoteric; who the hell is Tufty Fluffer? You don't even have a picture of him. It's so esoteric that it's probably not worth including at all. This really isn't where I was expecting this section to go. In a section called "Pre-Green Cross Code" I would expect to hear about car accidents, perhaps? Not just another lame character from British TV. You should really take note here because this is a problem at large with the whole article, I feel. Instead of really dealing with implications of the code, or what the streets were like before its inception, you only really talk about the characters that appeared in the various campaigns. You should really try to go into detail about road safety, make this more of a general article about what Britain's roads were like before and after the code, and just have the TV ads as a smaller part of the whole. It's like you're not really getting to grips with the subject matter at all. |
| Concept: | 6 | Your central idea seems to be that the Green Cross Code basically prevents kids from ever actually crossing the road (although as discussed above, this loses its way a little half way through the article). I think you need to introduce this a little better in your intro. Right now, the only time you really hint at this is when you say it was succeeded by the "'If You Don't Want to Die: Stay Inside' campaign". I don't think this is the best way to start off the article. What you should always try to do with your intro is just introduce the subject matter and the foundation of your joke, so try to establish your gag that kids were being warned never to cross roads and refrain from talking about anything other than your core idea. The inclusion of the campaign that succeeded it, for instance, makes it feel unfocussed. Another note about the intro; wouldn't the bit about the code's inception be better under the header marked "Inception"? Again, this kind of information is quite specific, whereas your intro should be more broad. If you move it down your intro will be left near empty (especially if you also get rid of the 90s campaign that followed it, like I suggested). Use this new found space to describe the code in general. Remember that a lot of readers won't be readily aware of it, so really explain it as best you can. |
| Prose and formatting: | 6 | Your prose can be a little messy at times, but not really in a major way. I noticed at one point you misspelled "young 'uns", although I'm not entirely sure how you spell that myself. That seemed to be the only spelling error though. I think your biggest problem in terms of spelling/grammar is with grammar, although even then it's not a major issue. More specifically, you seem to overuse commas. Take a look at this sentence; "offical government statistics showed there were more deaths from vehicles hitting pedestrians, than there were from people feeling poorly". You don't need a comma after "pedestrians". I would say that the article still needs a thorough proofreading, so if you do this just pay close attention to your commas, make sure they're all how you want them.
When it comes to formatting, the article can look a bit scruffy at times. The Code section is a good example of this. It's the list, really. Also, the capital letters don't help. I'm not totally sure what you could do here, perhaps if you just had the 6 points without the explanations, then repeat it with the explanations to give you more information on what each point means, this would tidy it up (if that makes sense). Or perhaps you could introduce the 6 steps by way of an image, or do it like this: THINKFind a place in a predominantly white area and stop. STOPStand on the pavement near the kerb (note: should that be "curb"?) Formatting it this way might prevent it from looking listy, and will also help with the all caps (otherwise I suppose you could embolden them or something?) Finally on formatting, there are an awful lot of red links in here. One red link every now and then isn't so bad, but to have three so close to each other and in such a short article that only makes it even scruffier. |
| Images: | 4 | Your images are ok but not great. I definitely think you need a better opening image; something that really establishes your article and gives a clear indication of where you're going, if possible. Then the one of the Green Cross Code man could be moved down to the section about him, where it would fit a lot better. I would also take another look at your caption for this image, it's a bit nonsensical at the moment. Try to keep it in line with a consistent style of humour rather than just making the silliest comment possible.
The SPLINK one is ok, and should probably be kept just as proof that SPLINK was real. I'm not sure why you haven't made this one a thumbnail as it clashes with all the others. I'm guessing it's because you couldn't think of a caption, perhaps. Why not try something like "A poster for SPLINK. Yes, it was real". I really liked the robot one, as well as the comment that there didn't need to be a robot. However this whole section looks really messy because the image is a lot bigger than the text. What I would suggest doing here is taking your joke about the unnecessary robot and moving it from the text and into the caption of the picture. This way, you'd have a much better caption for the image and you wouldn't have all this white space making it look scruffy. Then the Abbey Road one; this was a nice, imaginative use of an unrelated image, so I would definitely recommend you keep it. However, try to find a better place for it than just at the end where it sticks out. You don't necessarily have to have a section of prose related to it, but if you could try to tie it in with another section that might help, even if you just adjust the caption to do this. |
| Miscellaneous: | 5.5 | My gut feeling. |
| Final Score: | 26.5 | So overall, a piece with lots of potential that just needs the silliness ironing out. My main advice would be to deal with the subject more broadly, rather than just focussing on the campaign characters. Also, try to tone down the randomness in the second half. 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 and I'll try to help. I hope the review is ok. |
| Reviewer: | --Black Flamingo 10:21, October 31, 2010 (UTC) | |