Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Ann Coulter

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Ann Coulter

This was a clean-up and then a rewrite of a Gerry Cheevers rewrite of a page started by Chronarion on the second day of Uncy's existence. With election and namedropping season now in full swing in the U.S., readers may enjoy this page as they focus on the assorted nuts loose in the political system. Thanks for the look and help. Aleister 17:19 20 9

I'll do it. ~~Sir Fightstar Rocks! CUN 17:41, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
Humour: 6.5 Well, reading this article was a good experience for me, I had sone laughs (thanks for bringing up that FUCKING ADAM'S APPLE) but when I was done I felt kinda... empty. There was sooo much more you could have done with this. It was too short, I have a 4-section, 3-image rule that I try to stay loyal to, but I digress. With a topic like that insufferable Republican bitch Coulter, there is tons of funny shit to write about. You've covered David's textbook liberal agenda with rather satisfying results, but left his background almost completely in the black, and not spoken much about his act. When it comes to the background, you can do whatever the fuck you want. What happened in his past to make him so liberal? Why does he cross-dress, instead of staying a man? Just a far-fetched possibility: He could be a gay man. This would put an odd spin on Ann coulter calling lefties such as Al Gore and John Edwards "faggots," and the fact that she actually thought Bill Clinton was a closet homosexual. Again, just a possibility.

As for the act, I offer these (real) Coulter quotes:

"In 1960, whites were 90 percent of the country. The Census Bureau recently estimated that whites already account for less than two-thirds of the population and will be a minority by 2050. Other estimates put that day much sooner.

One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been. If this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans, it would be called genocide. Yet whites are called racists merely for mentioning the fact that current immigration law is intentionally designed to reduce their percentage in the population."

"Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women. It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it's the party of women and 'We'll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?"

Do want you want with them.

Concept: 7 You have an excellent, albeit predictable concept that can be milked for a lot of clever comedy. And, well, you've milked it for clever comedy, just not a lot of it. Like I already said, it just doesn't seem like it has enough, a shadow of what it could, should, and likely will be. I really like this article and concept, as a die-hard liberal and hater of all things conservative. It seems pretty well timed too, as you mentioned. (She's on Larry King tonight.) But enough praise, back to peer critique. The main problem with this concept is it has been used to about half its potential. Why just buy "Jeremy" from Pearl Jam's outstanding debut album Ten when you can buy the whole album instead? That was an odd analogy, but you get my point. People will go for a good thing of they can have more as opposed to less.
Prose and formatting: 6 QUOTES QUOTES QUOTES THOSE FUCKING QUOTES. I'm sorry. Quotes make articles look ugly and they don't belong. Other than that, your prose is pretty solid. I didn't find any spelling errors or anything like that. I would shrink the first image, to a point where the caption doesn't interfere with the article, and of course take out the quotes.

Really, take out those quotes, they seem like filler and don't add much.

Images: 5 Now this is where your article hits a wall. You have two images, and- shudder- they're both of Ann Coulter. Well, I guess they have to be. You don't have enough, then. And the second one really isn't that relevant, and just weird.

A possibility for an image: A closeup of THAT FUCKING ADAM'S APPLE. Seriously, did she swallow an iPhone?

Miscellaneous: 7 My overall opinion.
Final Score: 31.5 I like this article. It's a fraction of a feature as it is, and I will be looking forward to seeing what you do with it.

The Bottom Line: Keep doing what you're doing, just more of it.

Reviewer: ~~Sir Fightstar Rocks! CUN 02:46, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects