Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/George W. Bush's Hurricane Machine

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 01:20, July 8, 2009 by Staircase (talk | contribs)

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


edit George W. Bush's Hurricane Machine

Another poltical article. I tried to satirize both the Bush administration's ineptitude and the stupid people who seem to think the Bush somehow "allowed" Hurricane Katrina to happen. Let me know how I did. Review away. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 18:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Staircase in person
This article is under review by none other than.....

Let down your hopes, eh?
Aww man, I was gonna review this. Poo. Saberwolf116 23:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
You can review it if you want... Guildy can have a two for one! Staircase CUNt 23:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Humour: 7.5 So, you have some very obscure title and article. Hm.
  • Introduction - So you did a swell job leading us off here. And apparently I can tell you don't like George Bush all that much. That's fine, and hopefully it fits in with the rest of the article. I have nothing really to add here; you did a good job. Maybe you could just add a good line, because I smiled bits but never really laughed. I dunno though. So, uh, the overall point is good job, you have nothing really to improve on here.
  • Background and History/The Reagenator - As for teh inro, I have nothing really to say except same as before: maybe a joke or two? It seemed a bit bland. But maybe you're going for satire here, so... sure. Now, what I'm going to do is go bey each subsection in this review, ok? Right. I'm going to include the Reagan one in this section, though. So, as for the Reagenator, personally, I didn't find it too funny or amusing. It seemed boring, and the idea didn't seem to bright either. Now, this is just me. Others might like it, but I think you should change it around a little bit. So, at this point I know you're going for satire, but I always enjoy some "hahas" here and their. I recommend you add some jokes, but, this is just me.
  • Crime Gas - So, this section to me seemed really sort of unfocused. The parts invovling Obama really confused. me. It's ither there is some joke I'm missing and I'm just stupid, or that was random and didn't hit the spot. However, I'm going to have to go with the second one. I think it was radnom and uncalled for. It made me go "Huh?" as opposed to "Haha". Also, it threw off the tone you had going in the rest of the article. So, I think you should remove that or replace it with something related. The rest, though, was fine.
  • George H. W. Bush’s Hurricane Machine - This section was. It was solid, well written, and just like the rest. I'm not going to pull off my normal "want to see some jokes" speach, because at this point I'm pretty sure you're going for Satire (shoot me in the head if I'm wrong). Also, might I ask if you really do not like repulicans, or are you ust acting like it? It's making me curious, but after seeing the way you wrote Peyton Manning I can't be sure whether you do or don't hate Republicans. So. You can tell me later.
  • Development and Specifications - I'm going straight to this section just becuase. You're intro thing was fine. Now, This section seemed a bit confsuing for me. The paragprah regarding how it takes blacks and saves whites just seemed way to unrealistic to me. It wasn't funny either, to me it almost seemed sort of racist (I know it isn't though). So, think that little part has to be rethought. However, the next pargraph was golden. I found it particularly amusing and it actually made me laugh. It's a great idea and a good way to finish the section.
  • Hurricane Katrina - This section was very solid an well written. It was very conspiracy-like, and I like conspiracies usually. However, the idea that there was a security breach that resulted in the evacuation didn't strike me as very funny or creative, and I think you should change that around a little bit. But, the part about the "botched" FEMA things was witty and funny an I liked reading it. Overall, this section was strong and entertaining, but you may have to change some things around.
  • Possible Future Uses - This section was odd. your content had nothing to do with the title, making it a big question mark for me. You have a good idea, but a wrong title for it. So, I just suggest changing the title to something more aappropriate like "Setbacks by democrats" or something. You can come up with one, I'm sure.

Overall, you had a good article here. There were little things that needed to be changed, but it will be an easy fix.

Concept: 7 This is a fairly odd concept, but it is creative just the same. What yo did within the article was something I wouldn't expect. What I got out of it was it was sort of a support of the Republicans destroying the world? I'm not really sure of the support or not support, but I got that the Republicans are trying to kill things for no reason whatsoever. Now, this idea doesn't seem too good, but you executed it well so I think that really made up for the lak of idea. But, one thing I noticed is that nearly a third of your article wasn't even related to the Hurricane machine, it was about other devices. That was important, but threw it off a little bit. Overall, the concept was weird and conspiracy-like. But what I said above, I like conspiracies. Also, you executed it well, so if you do that concept isn't that crucial.
Prose and formatting: 7 Well, you had this good formatted except for a couple things. I noticed two spelling errors, which helped detract from your score a little bit. The other thing was the fact that you had a bunch of longer paragrpahs, which is a little hard on the eye and, for me at least, doesn't really make me want to read it. You just have to break up the paragrpahs a little bit to make it look good, and then everyone's happy! Also, the images threw it off a little, but I'll get to that in the next section.
Images: 6 The images themselves were fine. They were good with the ideas of the article, and did a good job supporting the article. However, teh captions were bland. It was just like "This is what the image is" rather than a funny line about the image. since this is satire, or at least I think it is, you shouldn't really crack one liners, but I would like to see something more entertaining in the captions. Also, your images of the hurricanes were a bit too big for my liking, and it threw off the formatting a bit on my monitor. I marked you down in the P&F a little for that, so you may want to consider chagning the size.
Miscellaneous: 6.9 See below.
Final Score: 34.4 You have very few things to do to make this article better (lucky you):
  1. Fix the pictures and captions - They were a bit too big and weren't pleasing with captions.
  2. Get your idea straight - You had that slip-up down with the Futures uses. Just change that around.

So that's pretty much it. Good job with this article.

Reviewer: Staircase CUNt 01:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools