Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Bettie Page
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 18:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
|Concept:||3.5||The main page rip off idea isn't really that funny. Its just a bad concept, and it looks like your trying to create a new internet meme/in-joke with it. I don't think the main page parody can worth well with anything, it might be sorta ok if your ripping of say Oscar Wilde, Chuck Norris, Hitler, or someone who has dozens of pages about themselves. Even then, it might not be the best thing.|
If you did do a main page "vanity" rip off, you'd need to link to articles about the subject. Since Bettie Page doesn't have that many pages about her it doesn't work. You are also recycling content too much, you use the same picture 3 times, for this to work, there needs to be "satellite" material and pages behind the main page. You basically need to be overflowing with content.
Also, you really don't have that many jokes in the article, and you switch to a mere copy of the main page to soon, there is almost nothing about Bettie Page in the bottom half of the article.
|Prose and Formatting:||6||The page doesn't look to bad; however, the page looks short and sort of, for lack of a better term, half-assed. Like I said in the comments, this page needs to get the feel that its overflowing with content to work. Also, your internal links to nowhere aren't funny.|
|Humour:||3||I didn't really find this article funny. It doesn't really have any humor to it. As best, the page itself is the joke, and that generally isn't good. The article needs an injection of prose and humor; as it currently exists, it relies too much on boobs.|
|Improvability Score:||4||This page is probably improvable, but you'd need to link to other articles on Bettie Page. There is one news story about her, but that is about it, so you're going to have problems linking to other articles about her. This might be savable, but its going to take a lot of work, and possibly the creation of new articles.|
|Final Score:||19.5||Get rid of the nipple slips, inject prose, moar pics.|
|Reviewer:||--Mnbvcxz 23:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)|
Quick drive-by from someone with less of a problem with the images: It's kinda difficult to get away from the fact that she was a blatant, shameless exhibitionist - unless you do the old inversion thing and saddle her with the sensibilities of a Carmelite Nun, and shop a bunch of her photos to show her covered head to foot. Sometimes, tits are in context, and with Ms Page, they almost are the context... I agree with most of the review, but think the pics are fine per se, although you have re-used the same one three times when I'm sure there are others out there you could find and use.
- I think that nudity often ruins the humor of the article by making it too vulgar. I don't have a problem with tits per say, but going with exposed nipples just doesn't seem funny to me, it sort of crosses a line.--Mnbvcxz 01:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'll try to restrict the nudity images, but I can't guarantee there won't be any. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 09:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)