Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Ghetto White Boy Syndrome (again...)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Ghetto White Boy Syndrome

Could I possibly get a more in depth review that the last one before I go after a possible VFH/D run? Icons-flag-pi Pirate Lord__Sonic80 (Yell  •  Latest literary excretion) __ 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Its probably good enough to nominate now, in my opinion. --Mnbvcxz 18:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Just my 2¢. I don't think there will be an "against" issue with this article in its current state but I suspect there will be a lot of abstentions. PUSH yourself as a writer just a little here and look at the article as if it's missing a joke, or there's a joke that could be rewritten funnier. Perhaps an opportunity for humor missed somewhere. Remember, first impressions.--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  10:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Humour: 8 I got friggin' sick and tired of looking at this in the "needs review" section (plus I don't know who the hell Keith Lemon is nor care to), so here we are. Anyway, this article is basically brilliant. The running jokes you establish (the scholarly, medical tone and exposition; using niggah-slang in a serious manner; italicizing made-up gang terms as if they were actual terms; etc.) are all both clever enough to attract the more "cultured" (and I use that term very loosely) readers here, while at the same time ridiculous enough to amuse just about anyone who gives it a look. Good stuff.
Concept: 9 Absolutely friggin' brilliant. As I hate the whole rap/ghetto/gangstah thing, something that lampoons it as well as this does scores high in my book. The fact that it makes fun of something I dislike even more--white people who act like they're part of the whole rap/ghetto/gangstah thing--makes it rate even higher. The only thing that keeps this from getting a straight-up ten is the fact that people aren't going to be punching the term "Ghetto White Boy Syndrome" into their search boxes, if you know what I mean, although such a problem is basically inherent when you take such a creative direction on the subject of Wiggerdom.
Prose and formatting: 9 Damn good. No spelling or grammar errors, obviousy, not to mention you take a very distinct tone and keep it consistent throughout the whole of the article, which is hard to do. Don't change a thing.
Images: 7 The question here isn't about getting more images (as you have enough), getting better images (as the existing ones are more than adequate), or rewritting the captions (as they're all humorous and supplement the tone of the article nicely). Rather, you get your lowest score here simply because this article isn't what you'd call "image driven." It doesn't have to be, it probably shouldn't be, and I wouldn't worry about it. What I mean is; people will read this and remember it not for how funny X picture was, but for how clever the writting and good the concept was. Images mean little, by way of comparison.
Miscellaneous: 10 You deserve higher than what the average would've come out to be.
Final Score: 43 Not perfect, but then again there isn't really anything you could improve upon to make it so. This is probably the best form this article can be in. And having read it I plan on voting for it for VFH; just so ya know. In summation; good stuff.
Reviewer: --Guildensternenstein 05:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools