Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Category:Filial Piety Nominations

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Category:Filial Piety Nominations

This didn't do too well on VFH. What can I do to make it better? In-depth please. Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 23:19, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

I <3 TKF. It's Mrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 02:09, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
Humour: 9.5 Interestingly, there are a lot of things to click on and this leads you to lots of funny things. The first rejection was cute, and it arose my expectations. The next rejection was also funny cause it seemed to bother people. The third was even funnier cause it actually totally pissed people off and they reacted in a whinny yet helarious way. The following rejections were all helarious cause it was a mixture of agrevation, whininess, pissy bitchy nanananess, but, also developed this funny sense of arogant entitlement which I found funny. This idea that all you had to do was believe that something was funny and then that somehow warrarnts pestering people to get something feature. The balance between someones insistance on featuring an article they think is funny, vs. someones insistance that something they dont find funny isnt featured, is so funny it was a genuine LOL moment. As it moved on, it seemed more a sense of entitlement, i.e. I really think this article is good and thus I am entitled to have it featured, I am insistant therefore put it up all ready, vs exasperation on the part of others who refused to relent, until, ofcourse, they actually did, was so funny I would have peed my pants if I didnt have control over my bladder. I would give you a 10, but one thing I did click on, the article, well, I never found that funny. You could improve that, but Im not sure thats the point of what is trying to be featured.
Concept: 9.5 The concept could not be any clearer, it is the history of an epic battle between people who take the site super seriously vs. someone who so persistantly insisted on his entitlement to an article few people originaly thought funny, to be actually featured, until olé one round it happened. One thing that isn´t documented is its subsequent drama afterwards, editorial, play by play of the story and its svoting for as one of the top 10 of last year. Is there any way to include this without alienating the people who might be bitter about it and still keep it funny?
Prose and formatting: 9.5 The prose is actually spectacular ranging from Mouse Operandis elegant "stop it" in July 2009 to your own delightfuly twistedly ironicaly delicious "sucks" in September 2010. I would give a .5 more but you added a comma in March 2010 before I swear which shouldnt be there. Semantically, you are stating that you swear. It should read "2010 will be the year I swear it", with the it making the verb transitive.
Images: 1 Having only to go on the signatures, theres not much to say, though its nice to see them evolve. There are also the images from your article, which you could improve.
Miscellaneous: 10 Im givig you 10 points to ecourage you to keep at it. Believe in your goal. In the history of man there have always been lots of people who have strived to achieve something just for the sake of having it acheived rather than the goal meaning anything to them persoanlly. Think of all those leaders who had all the money, women and fame they needed yet insisted on wars and 5 year plans and what not. It certainly did much for the world. That being said, its better than taking things too seriously isnt it? So you go get em tiger!
Final Score: 39.5 As to actually what you can do to make this better to get it nominated. Apart from maybe thinking about making the actual article you based this on a good one, you can try not to renominate it too often. You can also encourage everyone to be funny in their votes for and against, since, hey, every time we vote for or against, we are contributing to the humour and parody of something that will eventualy be featured, in a few years I suppose :)
Reviewer: --ShabiDOO 03:19, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools