Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Gay (again)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Gay

Well, some of you might remember the last time I tried to get this page featured. It was not a great success. Maybe people missed the joke I was trying to make, or maybe I'm just an idiot. Anyway, I have changed this a lot since then, and a number of good edits have been made by other people also. Basically, I'm trying to make this more about the word itself, rather than hugely about the subject matter. There are loads of great articles related to this, and I have tried to list some of our better ones at the bottom. Anyone who thinks that bottom reference was funny can can not kiss my arse. So what do you think of it now? The article obviously, not my bottom...

Obviously any suggestions gratefully received. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 21:27, May 30 21:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Hey! I know that it says I'm doing another review but it's really long and I need to do something else before I die. I also know that you've asked SysRq to do this so if you have any strong objections... Well tough luck (or remove my template).


Have Fun!MuCal. Orian57 Orian57Talk!Read!PEE!UnProvise!CMC! 01:10 31 May 2008

Obviously not a problem Orian. A review from you would be a pleasure I'm sure. I had a lot of help on this from his faggyness, and you might want to maybe take a look at the talk page. Most of what's on the talk page relates to it's previous VFH attempt, and I have toned it down a lot since then. Basically, my goal with this article has been to write it in a completely neutral point of view. Such that the reader can't tell if the author is gay or straight. When I started working on this page it had clearly been edited by a load of un-funny gay people, and I really want to keep it out of this kinda format. You get the idea I'm sure... Anyway, I'm not no rush, so take as long over this as you need. Cheers for getting involved. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 16:15, May 31

Humour: 6 Well over all it was pretty average but that’s because some of it was excellent and some of it was not so excellent. The introductory paragraph was very well done and funny but then you had several list sections such as “Why are people gay?”. I considered doing a whole article on the subject (abandoned the idea after I got a better one) and there is plenty of material for a decent section here, things like “It’s cheaper” you know because the lack of children, “there is much less responsibility” you know cos of the no kids thing and “you don’t need any condoms” you know cos it’s in that song. There are almost certainly other things you could do; I’m just throwing some ideas out there. Also a similar thing with why are people straight (though I’m not sure it really fits with the article) it need expansion and a better punch-line that “it’s less effort”. Either way, the listy sections need to be converted into some prose, seriously.

The line before the “bible verse” kinda seemed a bit random. Why did he write it with a cloud? In fact why do we even need to know what it was written with? It seems like an unnecessary digression. The bible verse itself: Hmm, I got the joke but A) it wasn’t hilarious and B) I don’t think that very many people will get it unless they’ve read that bible verse (and it is a pretty obscure one). You need to be more inventive with this, maybe try something like a nakedly homophobic “verse” until the very end where god (or something) says “Oh, I do like your shoes!” or something.

The lesbian thing at the bottom was also really good so basically you need to work with the ideas in the middle, sometimes the content of the lists is ok it’s just that it’s in a list and sometimes there is more that can and should be done.

Concept: 6 While I see exactly what you’re trying to do here I just don’t think it’s working brilliantly. Though I can see why “confuse the vandal” is a funny idea, it’s just confusing to the honest reader as well as instead of being neutral it actually came across like you were trying to have it both ways. The voice of the article slid from gay hater to gay almost randomly. Why not be outwardly making fun of gays but also have more subtle digs at gay bashers, so intelligent people will get it. You could do it the other way around (making fun of homophobes with the subtly making fun of gays) but gay bashers are almost too easy to make fun of and we already have homophobia [1] amongst others.

Though if you’re intent on the confuse the vandals thing, you’d need to try and make the switches between “gay author”/“straight author” more gradual so it may be construed as the writer’s internal battle or “Rage against the stereotype”. Or something.

Also there are plenty of gay ideas you haven’t touched on. Gay occupations and past times is an area you could explore, for example. There are loads! After all you do have this under “fundamental stereotypes”, if you just want to talk about the word then you could probably get rid of that template at the bottom.

Prose and formatting: 7 As formatting goes, I thought it was pretty good. The template is very funny though if it’s not too much trouble it may look better in pink.

You used “cum” a couple of times I’m not being a spelling Nazi, I’m simply saying I think that kinda cheapened the article. Also I noticed a few typos.

As I mentioned in humour you have a few lists which are kinda disappointing and the others just don’t look nice. If you could convert them into prose it’d be better.

This kinda comes under concept as but the voice of article needs adjustments, not just with content but style too as it ‘’feels’’ like it’s been written by several people.

Images: 9 The images throughout were exceedingly funny (due to the captions) and relevant. Although, considering the length of the section, you had one too many on the fag/cigarette double meaning. I suggest getting rid of the ciggs as it was the least funny (and I really liked the misunderstanding of the WBC sings).
Miscellaneous: 7 (averaged) you make a link to Fred Flintstone, though this is perfectly acceptable why not make it link to Fred Phelps instead?
Final Score: 35 I know you want this featured but I really don’t think it’s FA material yet. It needs a lot of work preferably expansion and sorting out the voice of the article.

Oh my god, I’ve just looked at the top 5 list! It’s hideous! Now I know why you told me to take my time... Anyway should you like to thank/ask/insult me about anything and my grammar please visit my talk page.

  1. actually that could maybe use a bit of touching up MINE!
Reviewer: Have Fun!MuCal. Orian57 Orian57Talk!Read!PEE!UnProvise!CMC! 07:39 1 June 2008
Personal tools