Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/English Uncyclopedia

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit English Uncyclopedia

Utter crap I know. Feel free to tell me how to improve it or delete or whatnot. Sir Oliphaunte (განხილვა)  Georgia-flag-on-soccer-ball-vector 19:16, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Fuck. Just thought I'd introduce you to a new word. Tell it to your mother when she forgets to cut the crusts off your ham and cheese sandwiches. And I guess I'll try and review this, but I have no idea what I'm going to say, so it'll take a while. Pup 11:53 10 Feb '12
Sure, and thanks. This whole time I've just been yelling "Cunt!" at her. Won't she be happy to hear "Fucking Cunt" instead. --Sir Oliphaunte (განხილვა)  Georgia-flag-on-soccer-ball-vector 18:37, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
Humour: 7 The scores on these are meaningless. Feel free to change it to whatever you like. 

Starting at the top - The word product sticks out like a sticking out thingy. I don't think it fits in, as it's not actually a product, and by using it you've started to establish a concept that you haven't continued on with. 

What I'd be looking at doing here is creating your concept. This seems to be a little difficult though as your concept seems to be a little fluid throughout. Where it seems to have the most appeal to me though is where it becomes a sales tool to encourage companies to utilise Uncyclopedia for thingamajigging. So I'd like to see the lead doing exactly that - telling your audience who they are and what they should expect. 

The beauty of this idea is that you can go over the top with buzzwords and public relations speak and it will still sound right. So I'd be telling people that Uncyclopedia is more than a product, more than a website, and more than a research tool - it's the means to success in the corporate multimedia arena. Or words to that effect. 

Once you start with that kind of concept, much of the rest of the article can be polished in that direction as well. (Yeah, I'm proposing a different concept to what you have here to an extent, but I'm thinking about how I would write this. Sort of.)

Now that bit about combining the two different types of people together I'd change. Corporations like to see the point of differentiation that makes your service different from that of your competitors. So try and think of those things that make us different from Wikipedia, and make out that those differences make us superior. 

For instance: Wikipedia pushes for a neutral point of view. Uncyclopedia encourages it's writers to take the point of view that suits them. In a competitive market neutrality means that you won't see yourself as superior to others, whereas we encourage people to believe their own press and live in success creating delusions of grandeur. 

Wikipedia encourages native English speakers. Simple English Wikipedia encourages mentally challenged users. Uncyclopedia is the first and greatest tool that encourages psychologically, er, unique individuals to express themselves in all their tin foil hatted glory. 

Onto History. This section needs expansion. There is enough stupid in the history of Uncyclopedia that actually would fit in well here. I'd also suggest looking at Wikipedia:Uncyclopedia as well. 

One thing that amuses me is that Uncyc was born out of Wikipedia:BJAODN in so many ways. There's so much there that fits in here easily, and so many things that have survived here that have been take from there. The other thing is the idea that we were created as an antidote to Wikipedia, and since then we have become hosted by Wikia. 

The best analogy I can come up for with this is that Uncyclopedia is like an immunisation for Wikipedia, assuming Wikipedia is a disease. We are created from an inert (non-factual) variant of Wikipedia, to avoid people suffering from the symptoms of Wikipedia. I have no idea if this is usable, just thoughts. 

And Positive Aspects is the crux of your article. The following 3 ish sections are subsections of this. (Which means I would make them lower level headers, but that's me.) I don't know that there is much that I could add to these in regards to more ideas, but by twisting them to be more in line with an overall concept I think they can be polished to a gleaming shine. Or a shining gleam. 

On to Fin. The only thing I'd do here is turn this into a more salesman like approach. The most obvious trick that salespeople do is ask questions that get a yes answer a few times in a row, and then go for the sales question, and usually make that assumptive. So something along the lines of:

  • Do you want your staff to be more open and accepting of concepts that you deliver to them?
  • Do you want your kids to be able to read and write at a 12 year old level, or maybe even higher?
  • Do you want to have your dreams of world domination fulfilled by having an army of mindless drones following your every whim?
  • Then Uncyclopedia is for you! You can sign up right now, no waiting, by going- Sorry, what did you say?...

As for the GTFO at the end of the article - I cannot fault it. 

Concept: 7 As always, I've mixed up humour and concept together. So I have nothing new to add in this section. 

I could do a dance for you here if you like. 

Minor notes: I wouldn't use the names of any users in the article. It reads as vanity in a way, even if it isn't. Linking to list of admins and telling people to greet them with friendly abuse is fine though. 

Also, we have a few Australian users. Mention us. We feel left out otherwise. 

Everyone else who isn't in... If they're not one of us, try are inferior, hence ripe for ridicule. (Not really, but that concept works well here.)

Prose and formatting: 7 Beyond what I said relating to the levels of headers, I like the overall format. I would be inclined to use a false header ({{H3}}) for the last section so the joke isn't stolen by the TOC. 

I love the misspelling of sppell as well.

Strikeout jokes are not my favourites. The couple you have in here are okay, but I would prefer ambiguous adjectives, like renowned admins.

Images: 7.5 Good choice of images. Good captioning. Need to be a bit bigger though. 
Miscellaneous: 7 I was considering a little while back doing something similar. I chickened out. Good to see that you've had the courage to do what I didn't. 
Final Score: 35.5 Slutbucket is also a good word for your mother. 
Reviewer: Pup 05:15 11 Feb '12
Personal tools
projects