Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Gay marriage

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 19:21, May 22, 2008 by Heerenveen (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


edit Gay marriage

This is a compleate re-write, what do you think?

Have Fun! MuCal. Orian57|Chat|Chuckle|PEE List|Awarded|UnBlog|Icons-flag-gbOrian57 17:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What? I don't review things! It'll be done sometime tonight hopefully. ―― Sir Heerenveen, KUN [UotM RotM VFH FFS SK CM NS OME™] (talk), 21/05 18:11
Humour: 6 It's very good considering the subject matter at hand and how easy it is just to go into stupid gay jokes, that's for sure. I will say this now though: Improving the prose (see below) will improve this score to, as making it easier to read helps the jokes get along. The lead needs to be expanded in my opine - if you look at (the normal encyclopedia style) features, they all have much more than two lines there. Maybe try expanding on the social issue side of it, possibly explaining it. The main body of the article is good, but would be better with the prose changes.

Just as a note: I really liked the Religious...unions section, especially the line "the San Andreas Fault is perilously unsteady as it is, strongly intimate gay sex could only make matters worse! " That was just hilarious. One more thing too – try to break up the "Word choice" section a bit, as right now it just seems like a wall of text that is a slog to read through.

Concept: 7 This is a bog standard, encyclopedic article. I would expect nothing less really – this is such a boom-or-bust kind of topic that being overly creative with it could lead you down the path Cul-de-méme. It works, there's potential for jokes there, that's all you really need from the concept here, so this doesn't really need much going over. Just stay away from the tired old jokes, and you'll be fine.
Prose and formatting: 6 Ah, the crux of this article. This is basically what did me in with Cis-zeatin (return whore), so I know what I'm talking about – you are way too rambling with your sentences. Take the first sentence – "Gay marriage is what some of us would call “a social issue”. Many more would ditch the euphemism and call it “a biblical abomination of biblical proportions!”. Others still would call it pointless, as in Iran there is so obviously no such thing as homosexuality. " The stuff in bold is what I've added to make it more readable – short and snappy sentences suits sure...umm, is there a word for "article" that starts with s? Stupid alliteration. Anyway, apart from going through and shortening your sentence length where appropriate, your P&F seem fine, maybe a couple of grammatical mistakes, but that's it.
Images: 8 The best part of this article, I reckon. There's some laughs to be had here, especially from the last picture, they all suit the article very well and the captions are downright hilarious. If I was benig nitpicky, I would say that the Statue of Liberty picture is too small, and that the text on the cartoon needs to be easily readable, but they are only minor quibbles.
Miscellaneous: 6.8 n/a
Final Score: 33.8 I quite like this article. It's not exactly VFH, but for the subject its very good, and could be even better with a fix-up of the prose. Like I said on your talk page, this is my first review in a month (and I'm meant to be the holding RotM. Pah!), so feel free to moan at me if its not your standards.
Reviewer: ―― Sir Heerenveen, KUN [UotM RotM VFH FFS SK CM NS OME™] (talk), 22/05 19:21
Personal tools