Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Humanism

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Humanism

HODIS 04:17, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

It looks unfinished, and could use a lot of cleaning up. I suggest you write and clean up more before you submit a peer review. InMooseWeTrust 20:13, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
Although I agree with the above comment, I'd be happy to get this. --~~First Child Rei Ayanami (give orders) 21:33, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
Humour: 4.5 As someone with an atheist/secular/whatever you wanna call it religious view, this caught my eye. And while you're a relatively new user, I was expecting total crap, but it didn't fall into the pitfalls of most terrible Uncyclopedia articles (i.e. humanism is ghey lololol). That being said, this still needs a lot of work.

Let's look at some stuff. The biggest issue I have with this article is it never decides what side of the religious spectrum it's coming from. Is it supposed to be from a secular/freethinker who thinks Christianity is a bunch of stupid bullshit? Or, is it supposed to be written from a religious right point-of-view who thinks all atheists/agnostics/etc. etc. are all baby-killing douchebag hipsters? In the debate portion at the end, you seemed to be satirizing the narrow Christian point of view on skeptics/antireligionists/whatever, that they are all idiotic nonbelievers (If God exists, why not strike me down now, motherfucker? Huh? HUH?), but other parts of the article seemed random and rambling. Develop one satirical standpoint and keep it consistent throughout your article.

Another big thing is, you never adequately explained what humanism was. Space that could have been used for doing this was wasted on Douchebag McCunt quotes and meta-references to the fact that it was an Uncyclopedia article. (Seriously, never break the fourth wall, this isn't Drawn Together.) More on this in the concept section.

Concept: 3.5 Well, a basic underlying idea like this one is great in that it can go several directions, but the one you chose is... Well, you really didn't choose a direction. It seems to be nothing but a bunch of sometimes-clever ramblings on humanism, and sometimes not even on humanism. And... what is humanism? Like I said before, this needs to be explained. All you really said about this was that humanism and Humanism were two different things, and I didn't even understand that joke (if it was a joke, that is). What I'm trying to say is that there really isn't a concept to begin with. If you want this article to be considered "good," you need to make it more consistent.
Prose and formatting: 3 Eh. Where to begin? First things first, read through this. Look at the tone. For an article like this to succeed, it needs to be encyclopedic. This isn't encyclopedic in the least. I think I've said enough in that regard, however. This article's formatting is awful. There's a lot of mispeld wurds, quotes where they shouldn't be,and a long list section that is an absolute eyesore. Also, the debate section in the box looks ugly, although I guess it needs to be, although if you heed my advice you won't need that section at all. Quotes in general are ugly and unfunny, and shouldn't be in articles at all. and for the love of the God that may or may not exist, take your sig out of the article.
Images: 4 Well, you have a couple, and they're relevant. But they're also small, and they don't add much too boot. To be honest, I have nothing in terms of suggestions, ask someone else. Sorry, I suck at suggesting images.
Miscellaneous: 3.5 My overall opinion.
Final Score: 18.5 Sadly, this article is pretty poor. But that doesn't mean it can't be good with some work. Give it an appropriate tone, make it satirical, and put in your best effort and it will be good, it can, I know it will. I hope this helps, and you can contact me at my talk page if you have anymore questions. I wish you the best of luck on Uncyclopedia.
Reviewer: --~~First Child Rei Ayanami (give orders) 23:01, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools