Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Episcopal church
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
TPLN 05:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
|Humour:||6||There are aspects I really like and dislike in this article.
What I liked:
I understand perfectly well the the Episcopal's loving and acceptance of hot, steamy dude-dude action is the running joke of the article, and in some instances it's actually pretty funny. I particularly like the opening quotes. However, it comes very close to getting old; if this article were any longer I think it would've. However, as it stands now I think you're in the clear. I thought all the "Fun Facts" were very funny (although 'trivia' sections are typically discouraged) because they go with the intentionally sloppy/intolerant tone of the rest of the article. In particular I like the last Fun Fact very much, as it's totally out-of-the-blue and is likely completely true. I've always had a fondness for self-referential jokes as well, so that's another big reason for that.
What I didn't like:
The whole second paragraph of the introduction feels somewhat awkward and could be included into the first paragraph as well as be trimmed a bit. Perhaps something along the lines of:
The bits about George Bush are unncessary and cliched. Try fleshing about the bits about all the terrible Episcopal Presidents a little more; giving examples of their gay-loving or something.
The joke about Henry VIII wanting to marry his his is sorta lame. I would just loose it, and replace it with something more historically pertinent. I mean, this guy was a glutton douchebag who had six wives, you can say any number of things about him that really happened, any of which would be a hell of a lot funnier than "he wanted to marry his horse."
|Concept:||8||I always give high concept scores for things that actually exist in real life. I think giving real things the Uncyclopedia treatment works out a hell of a lot better than just writting random articles on things that don't actually exist. I also really like the whole underlying "they love gays and are therefore bad" motif.|
|Prose and formatting:||6||There really aren't any spelling or grammar errors, except for a few capitalizations of "Episcopal" here-and-there.
One thing you might want to change, however, is your tone. You drift between "colloquial encyclopedia" and just plain old colloquial. I would suggest sticking to either one or the other.
I personally think that sticking to an more professional, encyclopedic, matter-of-fact tone would contrast the bits about Jesus hating gays' souls a hell of a lot better (i.e., go with "colloquial encyclopedia"). Writing like you think you know what you're talking about but then really being an ignorant, slanted bigot is a lot funnier than just straight-up writing like you're an ignorant, slanted bigot. You should also flesh out some sections a lot more. I know I just said that if the article were any longer, the gay-bashing parts would get old, but if you changed your tone I think it would help a lot as the juxtaposition created by taking a more "professional" tone would make the joke work better.
|Images:||6||All the images are fairly standard. If possible, try changing the first image of the preacher with the one of the "I Am Gay" Jesus, making Jesus the first image. This would shock and surprise readers at once, get across your "gay" running gag at the outset, and basically be a hell of a lot funnier. Besides, it makes more sense for preacher-guy to be in the theology section anyway. Perhaps you could do a caption that goes along with the liturgy bit, and work your gay thing into that as well. I would think that a well-done gay liturgy would be quite funny. With the exception of the Harriet Tubman picture, try to make them all a bit bigger, too.|
|Miscellaneous:||7||A little higher than your average, as I think this has potential.|
|Final Score:||33||To summerize what I said before, clean up and focus your jokes, stick to a "colloquial encyclopedic" tone, jimmy the images a bit, and you should have yourself an article.|
|Reviewer:||--Guildensternenstein 15:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)|
Can we review reviews? This is a really good one. I nominate this for Review of the Week. I hope I can do the task such justice.
I'll see if I can improve it based on soem of these thoughts. Thanks. --TPLN 18:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Glad to help. --Guildensternenstein 20:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)