Seriously? I applaud him for his courage, but he did an exceptionally poor job.

He's writing as though this was a live competitive sporting event, as opposed to live scripted action drama.

I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable.

1) There might nor might not be a need to descibe background and history for a live competitive sporting event. In that case, the action and the performances speak for themselves. But with a scripted drama, the characters, plot lines and histories are critically important.

2) He neither explained nor defended his passion -- which was the assignment he was given. He wrote about what he liked, but he did not give the reader a reason to sign on. Why does he love wrestling, and how did Wrestlemania 25 exemplify those characteristics? As a fan, what was he expecting, and how were those expectations met -- or not met? Heck, how were his expectations set?

3) He literally challenges me as a non-fan to watch this to see if it will change my mind, but he's made no attempt to meet me where I am. He's putting the onus on me, rather than accepting responsiblity for understanding my view and leading me to reconsider it. But why should I bother? What is in it for me? How is wrestling unlike so anything anything else that it might fill a void in my life?

4) He writes like he's talking to a friend who already loved the show, and saying "I loved this. I loved that. I loved the other thing, too." Where's the set up? Where's the explanation? Where's the feeling? Where's the journey? You need to show your students "The Chris Farley Show," and explain to them that that is not the goal.

5) Contrast this review with the Ed Martin review of the Damages finale found on this blog at the end of March. Well, actually, it wasn't a review, but rather a preview. It conveyed *why* I should watch and *how* I should watch. Given that your student wrote that "EVERYONE needs to see" this show in his first paragraph, and tells his audience, "Even if you aren't a fan of pro wrestling, watch this match" in his last paragraph, he's got a duty to make the case. Mr. Martin made the case.

I hope that he redoes this review, and sends you a later version of it down the road. (Bianculli here: The lesson here, though I clearly marked Peter's effort as an amateur entry, is that readers to this site expect the highest of standards, and will be critical of anything less. The remarks offered here, to Peter, are not harsh for the sake of it, but take the time to point out where the piece may have fallen short or delivered too little. That's the heart and soul of true, valuable criticism, and Peter, if you're reading this, please accept it, and respond, as such. I've learned a lot from the readers of this site, and you can, too. -- David B.)

Peter,
I hope that when you have finished school and are doing what you want, you will look at your review and the merciless review of it by ceolaf and smile.
If you learned from it, that's a reason to smile.
If your skin developed an extra layer so that subsequent uninvited pile-ons didn't have the same abrasive effect, that's a reason to smile.
If you continued to put your best work out there, knowing for every vocal dissenter there is at least one person you connected with, that's a reason to smile.
Can't please everyone. Can't be perfect early on. Can keep smiling and learning and getting better.
Congratulations for taking the chance to put your ideas in front of strangers. Should you be pointing in the direction of a journalism career, this has been an almost-priceless experience of how to react to your readers. Nothing close to what you need to know to deal with editors, but heal these bruises before you walk down that avenue. (What a great message, and a great lesson, to impart. -- David B.)

This was not a review. Was not useful, not informative, not engaging, not descriptive. Why was it written?