Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Church of Scatology

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Church of Scatology

I wrote this article a long time ago and I think it is really funny. I've never had anything pee reviewed before so I thought what the hell why not give it a shot. So be gentle. But also tell me what it is that I'm supposed to do to this article so that it can be on the main page. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 03:37, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'll get this one. 24 hours at the most but probably much less. --Black Flamingo 21:01, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
Humour: 7 Ok, generally speaking your humour is pretty good. Certainly none of it is bad. In my opinion, however, there are a couple of things that would probably keep this from the main page, the two biggest detractors being the lack of overall content and the fact that the article is a bit scruffy. Both of these qualities make an otherwise funny piece seem like an unfinished first draft (which it may well be). I'm going to try and help you as much as I can with this, but first of all let's just take a look at things you could do with your humour. I'll do this section by section, I think.

First of all, the opening quote is a bit lame. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but if it's any consolation it's probably the only bad joke in the whole thing. It's not just the fact that it's Noel Coward (who isn't quite as annoyingly cliched as Wilde) it's just that it's one of those typical silly opening quotes that doesn't really add anything to the article. Maybe I'm just prejudiced against opening quotes altogether, but I always say that most jokes that can be made in quotes would probably work better in the main body of the text as prose. Surely you could rework the fact that it's "a load of shite" into a prose-based joke somewhere else in the article? Perhaps in a section about what non-Scatologists think about the religion.

Your intro doesn't really go into enough depth, and as a result of this the core concept doesn't really get established properly. It's a bit rushed. Be more general here, take your time to introduce the church and its main beliefs, give a quick clue to what kind of things the article is going to be dealing with, and most importantly, try to get a few jokes in there. While the stuff about Lancelot and the "51st Glorious Year of Narconon" is funny, you have to go back and read the article again to actually understand it. The first time around, I had no idea what you were talking about. I will talk more about generating more content later in the Concept section, but for now I will just say that you need to introduce the article better, be it through leaving this stuff to explanitory sections or having a longer intro that explains things like Narconon and the founding of the religion first.

In the article as a whole, a lot of your humour is very good. However some of it is also a bit cursory. The Scat section is a good example of this, it sort of rushes through the jokes without really focussing on what's funny. Starting with the mouthpiece line is probably not a good idea, although this line does have a lot of potential. I would recommend moving it a bit further along, so it acts as a kind of punchline, rather than throwing it in right at the start where it comes out of nowhere and feels a bit random. Try first establishing that they look for messages from Narconon in their scat, and then summarise by saying they believe scat is the mouthpiece of Narconon. Build up to the joke and it will be a lot more effective.

I really enjoyed the Calendar section, particularly all the silly rituals and made up languages that are common of modern religions. I loved the stuff about them having their own names for years and months even though ultimately they were the same as everybody else's, like they're trying to give the impression they're a proper, ancient religion steeped in tradition. This is a really keen observation of what modern religions do and I would like to see a lot more of that. My only problems here were the lack of references to scat; the article seems to lose sight of its underlying concept here (although again I will talk more about this in Concept).

The last thing I felt was an issue humour-wise is the Table of Saints thing. While it did make me laugh, it was a bit listy and seemed quickly thrown together. The problem with lists is again they're quite cursory and tend to skim over jokes rather than getting to grips with them. I would suggest you try to convert some of the funnier saints (ie. the top seven, the remaining six get a little silly) into prose-based jokes. It doesn't have to be a vast change in wording, just try something like "there are many saints..." and then go on to describe a few. As for those last six, I didn't think they were particularly funny; they were a bit random. So if you want to list all thirteen I suggest you think of a few more ideas for them. The one who was "the only German saint" was probably the peak of randomness that worked, I wouldn't suggest you go any sillier than that (ie. no Jedi masters). Hopefully, you will find prose a lot easier to tell jokes with than lists, and will find new ideas for jokes just leap out at you.

Concept: 6 I feel you have two concepts at work here. On the one hand you're making humorous satirical jabs at weird modern-day religions and on the other you're making jokes about poo. While there's no reason you can't have both, at the moment the two ideas aren't very well blended and the article seems unfocussed as a result. In some sections, like Calendar for example, you don't reference scat at all. It is a funny section but as a whole it feels like it's been pasted in from a totally different article than the Scat section does. You need to treat each conflicting idea as important as the other at all times, so try to get some references to scat in the Calendar section, even if they're just a few silly excrement-related holidays. Start this off in the intro right away and carry it through. You don't really make any reference to scat there either. Another tier to this problem is the way you don't really introduce the subject properly. In your intro you should be establishing the religion and its weird customs and perhaps have another paragraph which just explains the importance of poo (after all, you'd think an encyclopaedic entry would mention something like this as soon as possible). The key here is to remember to fully establish both concepts in your intro. To give you an example of where you do blend the dual concepts well, let me just give you my favourite line from the article: "St. Estebe, who drowned during a earthquake that caused a rupture in his scat vault". This is great because it attacks bizarre religious customs and employs a juvenile poo joke without getting too crude. Try to do more stuff like this, both with the parts you already have and in any new jokes you come up with. That actually leads me quite nicely onto my next point...

You really need more content as the article feels a little short and doesn't really come to a proper conclusion. I want to see more jokes like my aforementioned favourite one that successfully blend religious satire and low-brow poo jokes. You should definitely have a think about what other section headers you could get in there too. A few that spring to mind are: Founding (just some more detail on the history and the "discovery" of Narconon. You don't really get an impression of who he is in the article), Dispute on religious status (what would normal people or religious scholars make of this so-called relgion?), Followers (what are the demographics? Are there any celebrity Scatologists?), Controversy (you may notice these headings have basically just been taken from Wikipedia's Scientology article, perhaps you can get a few ideas from there yourself, if you haven't already).

Prose and formatting: 6 Some parts of the article are written a little clumsily. The first paragraph in the Scat for example section does't flow very well. You seem to start a new sentence for every minor point, when you could flow more fluently between them by just using commas and trying to link the different points. To give you an example of what I mean; the line: "This is where the Church of Scatology helps out its patrons", just feels tacked onto the end of the paragraph in order to lead into the next one. It's a little awkward. Try something like "The easiest way for Scatologiests to track patterns in their scat over time is through preserving the scat; a task the Church is more than happy to help out with". Don't be so keen to start new sentences, and don't be afraid to have really long ones if you're making a long point with lots of details in. Try not to have a string of short sentences next to each other as it sounds "choppy" (is that the right word?), punctuate them with longer ones.

Other parts of the article suffer from similar, if less noticeable, problems. It's nothing too major, I would just recommend another careful proofread before you finish, and just remember to proofread any changes or new sections too. If you can't be bothered proofreading and aren't able to find some other chump to do it for you, there's always spellchecker (although I personally don't trust them). I'm pretty sure there were spelling errors, February being the only one that springs to mind. As for sorting out the prose, I always find reading it aloud helps me with ideas on how to change words around to get it to flow the way I want.

Just one final note here, surely "Scatologiests" should be spelt "Scatologists"? That's how I've been inclined to spell it throughout the review, anyway.

Images: 5 Your images are all fine, the main problem is their layout. Most of them just seem to be in random places that aren't related to the adjacent text. The one of Narconon the lonley god, for instance, should be next to the part that describes him as such. The vandalised temple could be next to the bit about scat vaults, perhaps (although that isn't a particularly good or funny image). You should also move one to the intro to be your main image, either the one of the outside of the church or the one of the cross will do. The images look a bit messy as well, perhaps try putting one or two on the left to break up the line they form down the right hand side, which ultimately reaches further than the text and looks a little messy.
Miscellaneous: 6 My gut feeling. Note, however, that I'm considering this unfinished.
Final Score: 30 So to sum up, this is actually a pretty funny article. The main things you should be working on are getting more content in and strengthening your concept. The other issues are pretty minor and are common to all early drafts. But overall, I thought it had real potential. 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 was ok.
Reviewer: --Black Flamingo 09:14, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
Cool thanks Black flamingo! I've only read the first section so far, but this looks very helpful. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 17:16, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools