Talk:Forest Whitaker's Lazy Eye

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Revision as of 09:15, 21 March 2011 by Sockpuppet of an unregistered user (talk | contribs) (→‎VANDALS! )
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Humour: 8 average of sections
  • best of the lazy best: 6

okay, i see what you're doing here. as far as intentially bad sections go, this is pretty good, but it's got a few problems. i think you went with each paragraph coming from a different contributor. if that is the case, try to be more consistent within each paragraph. the first one is consistent until the end, when the spelling mistakes and stuff like 'fuckinglol' come into play. the second paragraph kind of argues with itself, which is fine. the third paragraph is disturbing, but clearly its supposed to be one line of vandalism, so if you think its okay as-is then i dont have a problem with it. the fourth paragraph is better, and more consistent overall. the last one again sounds a little contradictory. i think you should give this section a tune-up, trying to contrast the differences between paragraphs so it's clear to your reader what is going on.

  • actually folks: 8

good funny with forest whitaker actually cutting in. however, i think this section would sound much, much more official if it were actually coming from him. he might mention films he's been in. sentences like i dont see why it's such a big deal' could be more professional-sounding, to make it seem like whitaker is actually responding.

  • hold on a minute:10

great punchline, i actually haven't read a good 'punchline' article in quite a while. maybe instead of 'are you telling me that you have an article...' you say 'this website' or 'uncyclopedia'.

Concept: 8 5/5 points for a well-known actor being parodied.

3/5 points for execution. i like the way you went about this, i just think it needs some more polish in the vandalism section. also, this highly depends on uncyclopedia not having an article on forest whitaker himself, so perhaps you could convince an admin to protect that page if you make a good case. even if there is one created, the fake redlink works just as well. in general, i think more references closer to the real whitaker, such as his film/TV roles, should be mentioned at some point.

Prose and formatting: 7 like i said, i would prefer the prose in whitaker's section to be more official-sounding. the formatting works as-is.
Images: 7 good opening image. good closing punchline image. i dont think you need to add another one.
Miscellaneous: 0 see final comments
Final Score: 30 i awarded you 0 points as a miscellaneous score, becasue you already had 30 points and i feel like that's the most i can give you in this article's current state. i would say it's fine for mainspace, but if you worked on tweaking the vandalism section and improving the tone of the whitaker section, i would certainly support this on VFH. good job, good luck, and feel free to stop by my talk page with any questions.
Reviewer: Sir Gerrycheevers Gun Talk 16:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


Humour: 7 Right, I have no major qualms with your humour, my feeling upon reading your article is that you have achieved everything you set out to do. Having said this I have some suggestions about your humour. My first feeling was that yes, this is a good idea and that yes you were going the right way about executing it, what I felt dragged you back was the fact that this is all you do. Permit me to expand, as I have said, you pull off the idea of having a star respond to comments and then lose it when he realises what is actually going on, what I felt was that beyond this concept the humour was slightly limited, the vandal comments felt quite generic and thus genuine to me and it was evident you have put some effort into making the vandalism look convincing, what I thought was the problem is that this is the extent to which you use the concept of the article's creation. The vandalism aspect is simply a build up to introduce Forest Whitaker and thus your main joke. My feeling is that this could be taken slightly further, the vandalism, while it shouldn't be the main feature of the article should still play more of an active role. By this I do not mean do the same as you have already done but rather consider interspersing it throughout the article, this means that the humour is changed up a bit and you can demonstrate a more logical descent to irritation and profanity by Whitaker.

If I move my focus onto the part where you speak from Whitaker's perspective then once again I feel that what is there is viable enough but you should consider having another look at it. Prior to checking the talk page I thought that the joke regarding Whitaker quickly becoming enraged and swearing at the reader has a slightly flawed structure. While I suspect you wanted the abruptness of the joke to demonstrate the thought process that Whitaker would have gone through to reach the conclusion he does reach, on my first read through and without the prompt of the talk page I just felt the joke was sudden. Now this may be because I'm a bit stupid but it may also be because it just isn't obvious enough. Again I am not saying put in a sentence in bold saying "WHITAKER THINKS ABOUT THIS", but consider implementing a smaller change to that recommended in the above, perhaps a brief exchange between Whitaker and one of the vandals, this need only be a couple of lines but would more aptly demonstrate the reason for the change, this would eliminate the need for a reader to visit the talk page to confirm the reason for the change and an explanation of the thought process, I think you could implement this without effecting the general feel of the article too much, it would just necessitate subtlety, which I have no reason to doubt your ability to carry out.

Concept: 8 The concept is certainly a more original take on the use of vandalism, which is undoubtedly a good thing. Due to the unique nature of the article I accept that a specific tone is unnecessary and impractical. As I touched upon above I was pleased to see you recognise the differing ways that people express opinions and the gulf in humour that exists on Uncyclopedia in both the vandals comments and partly in Whitaker's comments. What I think you need to do with the concept is make it more accessible, I talked about this above too, but your concept does run the risk of alienating certain users, the style is scruffy and for some this will be a greater turn off than for others, those who buy into the joke will undoubtedly benefit, but you should be aware that the style necessary for the concept is not the most universally acceptable one.
Prose and formatting: 7 This one is difficult to score, your prose are pretty good and a quick check through some sections for grammar errors would iron out any final difficulties. But the main problem is that you have said you are happy with how things are already and don't wish to change things, in this case I will point out what I saw as detrimental to the article so that you know and then you can choose to take it into account when making decisions about the article. The line through the top text is a necessary evil, you obviously want to emphasise that the article's main point utilises the prose that are crossed out but that they are still important, however it does have the side effect of making the prose difficult and unpleasant to read. It also makes the article look overly scruffy when you first see it, but I suspect that was your intention. Otherwise the formatting is OK, and the image formatting cannot really be commented on. The only other suggestion I have is that you break up the text in Whitaker's dialogue, simply so it is easier to take in and lends itself to him being a literate and intelligent guym this would contrast nicely with his later text.
Images: 9 Again not much to be said here. The images are relevant and play the role you need them to in the article. I suspect you know what you are doing with these, and there isn't much more I can suggest you do with them that would improve the article, I think any improvements will be rooted in your prose.
Miscellaneous: 7 My overall grade of the article.
Final Score: 38 As I said to begin with, your article does what it sets out to do and nothing more, which you can justifiably be pleased with. I think everything that you wanted to do has been done to a high standard and is done without issue. While this is a good thing it doesn't necessarily guarantee the success of the article and my opinion of it was that it was good, but not brilliant and that it just didn't do it for me in the way I suspect it would for others. However you should feel justly proud of your accomplishments nonetheless. If you have any questions or comments for me then please leave them on my talk page. Good luck making any changes.
Reviewer: --ChiefjusticeDS 22:29, December 21, 2009 (UTC)


Article needing fixing up...[edit source ]

Can it be explained to me why it needs to be fixed up? Woody On Fire! Wood burning.gif Talking Woody Stalking Woody 17:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need anything cos it fuckin kicks ass! The best of the lazy best. --noamshou separty 09:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who thinks this is just an attack/isn't parody.[edit source ]

The point of this article is not to attack Forest Whitaker. The point instead is to parody a few different things.

  1. The top section is just an ignorant, vandalized mess. I know we've all seen idiots out there on the internets and even in our fair Uncyclopedia. Often times people pick on unimportant stuff like Whitaker's eye, think they can be funny by being dicks about something they don't really understand. I feel like the article title is a good starting point to serve that purpose.
  2. Whitaker starts out in the second section, after presumably striking out the first section, trying to be cool about everything, and explaining what causes his lazy eye, while also pumping up his own acting career. While this article isn't a direct attack on Whitaker (who I hear is actually an awesome guy), too often I see celebrities who think they are way more important than they really are. The article attacks it from that angle, making Whitaker slightly pompous, while making his largest mistake, linking to his own page, Forest Whitaker. This is both a little vain, and a look inside Whitaker, who we now know has a decent ability with Wikia-style formatting. But, again, he tries to play off the vanity by making his acting about the roles, and the serious artisticness of each film.
  3. Whitaker obviously doesn't understand that this is a parody website. He seems to be treating it like Wikipedia.
  4. He ends the second section with the lines: "I would suggest that someone delete this article immediately and redirect the page to Forest Whitaker. That should clear things up about who I am, not only as an actor, but as a man. Peace Everybody." He mistakenly decides to stake his entire acting career and self-worth on the Forest Whitaker page. What he doesn't realize is that that page does not exist on this wiki. This, therefore, implies that he is a nobody, and is worth nothing.
  5. It appears, that in section 3 Forest read what he wrote, and saw that the link to his page is red, i.e. there is no page on Forest himself, but there is one on his eye. To him, this says that the only reason people on this site know him is because he has a lazy eye, and has dismissed his acting, and the other facets of his life. Needless to say, he does not appreciate it. He mentions to everyone that he's won an Oscar, and posts the image of himself (notably, in the image he adds of himself, his lazy eye is not as pronounced) surrounded by his Oscars.
  6. He ends on the line "Suck it, douche bags." which is serves two purposes. First, it stands as a nice one liner. Second, it stands in direct contrast of the business-like and diplomatic way he wrote the second section, and instead falls into the trap of attacking the people he tried to disregard from the first section, and does so in the same way that they attacked him. This undermines the diplomacy he tried to exude in the second section, and makes him seem disingenuous and petty, exactly what he would like you not to believe from section 2.

Whelp, there it is. I hope people might be able to understand the point and purpose behind the article, and I hope everyone enjoys it. Above all, don't forget:

Suck it, douche bags.

~Forest Whitaker

Woody On Fire! Wood burning.gif Talking Woody Stalking Woody 23:01, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

VANDALS![edit source ]

I've been accosted by Vandals! :0 Woody On Fire! Wood burning.gif Talking Woody Stalking Woody 04:58, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

They love you. Or perhaps his eye. Or something. 1 2 3 4 ~ 16px-Pointy.png 05:25, 21 March 2011
I protected it from any future sexual assaults. —Sir Socky Sexy girls.jpg Mermaid with dolphin.jpg Tired Marilyn Monroe.jpg (talk) (stalk) Magnemite.gif Icons-flag-be.png GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY  PotM WotM 09:14, 21 March 2011
Retrieved from "https://en.uncyclopedia.co/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forest_Whitaker%27s_Lazy_Eye&oldid=5025625"