Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/A Letter for Paedophilic Priests

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 01:12, January 8, 2011 by Black flamingo11 (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit A Letter for Paedophilic Priests

I spent quite a bit of time on this. I just need to know if it's funny, formatted nicely enough and perhaps someone's opinion if it's too offensive. Thanks in advance. --Username18 06:48, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what's wrong with the page, but there's no link to the article. So here it is.
You managed to remove the table and the header and the links and the... all the stuffy stuff, somehow. How? O_o 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy Major Pleb Dame Lyrithya AthyriaIsarraHaydrahlienne - 'Destroyer of the Wiki' - MUN OUN CUN KUN DUN GUN *shifty eyes* (zombiebaron) • (dr. skullthumper) • (roman dog bird) • (nachlader) • (frosty) • (more zombiebaron) • (talk) • (stalk) • (block) • (log) • (list) • WotMUotMRotMPotMUGotM x4 • SotMFFSNOMMotMBFF x2 • GSA x2 • PSFiyCMDTop3 x3 • Top10VFH x15 • VFP x3.5 • HoSTAWHMCPEEINGPRSPCURCΥΣΣICZB -- 21:59, 3 January, 2011 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea. When I put the article's name in the box for Pee Review, it gave me the page, but wasn't part of the Pee Review category. And it didn't have anything. Is this normal? Or am I special?
Can you see anything on the page now, or is it still empty? --Username18 22:10, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
Who is saying that? I can't see anything. --Black Flamingo 22:31, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
Wait, is this review page blank? I can see the "Review Now" link. Is there something wrong with the page? --Username18 23:04, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
No it's fine, sorry about that, I can't resist confusing noobs. --Black Flamingo 14:21, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
You are a cruel, cruel person. Also, anyone going to review this? --Username18 22:33, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
I guess I can get it for you, having pushed it to the top of the queue continuously. I'll be done some time tomorrow but will try to start now. --Black Flamingo 23:04, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
Humour: 7 Having read this article a few times I can say with some confidence that there really isn't much wrong with it at all. You've done a really good job writing it and I wouldn't be surprised if it became a featured article in the near future. It's not perfect however, and there are one or two small things that would probably hold it back if it ever did reach VFH. There's not a lot to say really, but let's start with humour, since it's the first box.

Right, the main issue in my opinion is that occasionally your jokes don't come across as well as they could, although generally the ideas behind them are excellent. Sometimes you're just too subtle, and other times muddled, but it was a consistent if minor problem I had with the whole piece. I really like the idea that the Pope is only telling priests to stop being paedophiles because he wants to stop the protests against himself, rather than being against the practise altogether. If it was executed a little more smoothly, it would be a really funny little twist. However you need to make it clearer, as I don't think you really explain it at any point. I actually missed it the first time around (maybe I'm just thick, but when you consider all the people who are as thick - or even thicker than me you can probably appreciate the problem). At the beginning you sort of leap from having the Pope say "we have to stop the protests" to then suddenly saying "we have to do something about this paedophile thing" never once mentioning any correlation. Of course, I did eventually work out what he was talking about, but like I said, it was only the second time I read it when this came together (and even then I had to infer it). I would just have a go at clearing this up, if you could, because it's a really good idea.

Other examples include the supposed idiom "preaching to the choir", which is a strange line. My understanding of this saying is that it basically means "preaching to the converted", however here you use it to mean abusing children, which is not something I'd previously heard, nor do I really get it. It's not a major problem, but I had to re-read the sentence once or twice to get my head around it. What I would suggest here is that you either come up with a more relevant and obvious idiom, or somehow make it clearer that this line means what you intend it to mean. In fact, the whole Marriage is Forbidden is a bit muddled to be honest - I had to re-read the whole thing really. I still don't really understand the Pope's reasoning for denying marriage amongst the clergy is (in the article I mean, not reality), it seemed he was just saying that it was because they've always done it. But then he also said something about spending nights with misguided nuns - a nice joke - at least if it was saying what I thought it was; I'm guessing you were pointing out the hypocrisy that although they won't get married they'll happily abuse nuns. And who are these "others" that won't be permitted access to? And how is it shown as being unrealistic? You really need to explain this whole section a little better, methinks. No one is going to laugh unless your jokes are clear and concise, as I'm sure you know.

Now the Amen part kind of feels like the end of the letter. However, there are then two more sections which follow, both of which feel a bit out of place. This is a shame really, because they're full of good content, but sticking them on the end like this, particularly in the form of lists, makes them seem a little bit like filler material. The Theological Characterisations section in particular is very clever, but I'm afraid it just doesn't work as a list. Lists generally aren't funny for lots of different reasons, but here it's probably the lack of flow that spoils it. They're a bit cheap too, I suppose; not requiring much effort to write, not compared to prose anyhow (although as I've said, I do appreciate the quality of the subject matter behind it). What I would love for you to do, if possible, is to somehow work these quotes into other parts of the article, whether it's just gags in the text or even as captions for images. Just any way to get them out of this list format and into something that flows better. I realise this may require a bit of work for you, but I really think it will help the article. If there is a way to get these pointers into earlier parts of the article it will seriously up the joke count too, which can only help. Otherwise maybe you could convert the whole section into something more prose-based. I'll leave the decision with you of course, I trust your judgement on this. With the list of Latin quotes, this isn't quite as successful, and I would suggest a bit of trimming. The issue is, again, it's a list and it's just a bit too repetitive in my opinion. Perhaps just keep the first two, and either use them to close or open the article, in a kind of slogan-y way. They would make a very good sign-off for the Pope's letter in general, I reckon. Just as a nice little punchline rather than this big overlong section.

Concept: 7 A bit of a dangerous concept insofar as it's been done a lot of times before, but you handle it really well. The idea behind it isn't hugely exciting, but the strength of your writing really draws a lot from what would have been a string of obvious jokes in the hands of a lesser writer. The only thing I really have to say in this column is to advise you to be careful with any further edits, and make sure you don't lapse into cliché (which I'm sure you won't).
Prose and formatting: 7 Ok, in terms of prose I honestly don't see any problems at all, so well done there. There are a few issues with the formatting however, mostly regarding the blankness of the article. It looks a bit strange that your opening section is made up only of the words "by Pope Benedict XVI", and gives the article a blank look. I appreciate you may be trying to make it look like a letter, but I suggest you go about this another way. One option would be to move your first section up and make that your intro, you can still have the "by Pope Benedict XVI" part if you wish, but this could be underlined or emboldened just to make it stand out. However, letters generally don't start this way, so it may be an idea to think about what else you could do to make it resemble a letter, if that is indeed something you'd be interested in. Perhaps a simple "Dear whomever" to begin with? There is also the option of making it literally look like a letter, much like this article. You can have a go at copying this, or one of our style wizards may be able to sort it out for you, if you ask nicely (and if you even want to go down that route, it would probably work just as well if you just sorted out the blankness at the top).

Another note on formatting, there are no links in here. I don't see a reason for there not to be, other than to make it look like a letter. You should probably put some in anyway. Because... well you just should.

Images: 2 Here's the only place where the article really falls down because you barely have any. It's just that one, and while that's ok, it doesn't garner a very high score for you I'm afraid. You basically need a lot more, this is one of the reasons the article looks so blank. I'm not sure why you don't have any, other than again because you wanted it to resemble a real letter. Despite this, I think the argument for having images would be stronger than any argument for realism. They're a really important part of writing for the site; not only do they make articles look better but they can add so much in terms of visual and caption-based humour. Try to get enough in that you can always see one, at least, and most importantly of all you need an introductory one - something big at the top that establishes the mood, style and subject matter of your article. Even if it's just a picture of Ratzinger or something. As for what else you should illustrate, I'm not too sure, I'm going to have to leave that with you. But surely there are plenty of religious images out there that you can take satirical jabs at? You mention nuns, of course - they're always good for images. If you have to, take a look at our featured articles, or even Wikipedia articles on similar subjects for inspiration. I usually find that helps. And remember there's always image request if you need something to be created.
Miscellaneous: 7 Specific questions: Funny? Yes. Formatted well? Could be better. Too offensive? Definitely not. Just offensive enough, I think.
Final Score: 30 To sum up, this is an excellent piece that just needs a little more work before it will look properly finished. The main thing I would work on is getting more images in there, but a bit of a play with the formatting and a general clear up of some of the text would also help a lot. I look forward to seeing where you go with it; you really are proving to be the most exciting of our new writers, although I think you've been around longer than I previously thought actually. 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 01:12, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects