Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Boobpedia

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Boobpedia

You wouldn't want to see the site yourself, of course, but I think this is a very important article for our site.

Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 19:45, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

As soon as a I get a chance this week, I'll give this a review. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 15:58, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
I feel obligated to say, I found it hard to believe this was a real wiki. Gosh, am I naieve. (Actually, I dislike the name of the site. To me, Boobpedia should be for all boobs. If they just want big, BigBoobpedia seems like a better name.) WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 19:40, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
I don't get this - why so many links? And to the exact same damned wiki? Although I am quite disinclined to accuse anyone of being a paid writer or viral advertiser, I can't really help but think of this as a shameless promotion given that the whole article is pretty much all about "Hey, don't click the link - it's disgusting! (Link ->)". -- JoeMonco 13:23, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
I understand that concern, but I opted to do the joke anyway, thinking most readers would get it. --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 15:04, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
Humour: 6.5 The jokes were fairly obvious and straightforward, though certainly not bad. For me, the greatest humor came from the "contradictions" you utilized. Your constant ostentatious condemning of the site, only to give it a sort of unintended endorsement-type-thing at the end and elsewhere is actually pretty funny.

The highlight of the article for me, however, was actually the line about girls potentially being unable to use digital cameras. Not only is this funny in its own right, but it gives the article an extra layer of meaning in that it brings to mind those hopelessly outdated folk that strive to protect women but at the same time think that women as a whole are totally incapable--it's a nice little bit of satire in an otherwise parody-intensive article. I would like to see more of these type jokes for that exact reason. Perhaps something about women being unable to use or comprehend the internet, and therefore even find Boobpedia, or something.

Concept: 7 To elaborate further on what I said in the Humor section, your concept is solid. The unintended endorsement of the site while condemning it is good, if somewhat obvious. However, I feel there's room to do more with this, and if you threw in a couple extra bits to the effect of the "digital camera" line, you'd probably gain a point or so in this department by virtue of stressing the "somewhat out-of-touch unintentionally chauvinistic but ultimately well-intentioned if somewhat annoying" people angle.
Prose and formatting: 7.25 The writing's solid, and therefore requires no real improvement or address.

As for formatting, however, I have a number of minor complaints:

  • The C-cup limit really doesn't deserve it's own section, and should probably be integrated into the "Categories" section, preferably along with a mention that Boobpedia doesn't carry photos of breasts smaller than a C-cup because the disgusting misogynist men that visit the site don't care for boobs that small, or something.
  • This is one article where __NOEDITSECTION__ should definitely be utilized, because the slew of pictures coupled with the slew of sections really fuck up where those little edit boxes show up, at least on my monitor.
  • As a sort of general complaint, you could and should elaborate more on each section--maybe give examples of the harlot models the constitute each category, or something--because your sections in that area are all really short.
Images: 6 Your formatting of the "slew of pictures" I keep alluding to actually works really well--the pictures are all evenly spaced and don't interfere with the text much with the exception of those annoying edit boxes (a problem that can easily be remedied). Problem is, I don't care for any of the pictures. What I suggest doing is actually using Boobpedia photos to demonstrate each category. Sure, that would almost certainly warrant the "Not Safe For Work" template, but it would complement the running joke of the article's narrator condemning but also unknowing promoting the site really well.
Miscellaneous: 5 Though this is a decent article now, it still needs a good deal of work, hence my point or two below what the average would have been.
Final Score: 31.75 Read the above comments.
Reviewer: Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 19:57, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects