Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Jerry Falwell
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
I don't know if you kids these days know who Jerry Falwell was, but back in the day he was Jerry Falwell. Also, the anniversary of his death is coming up (May 15), and I'm thinking of putting the page on VFH in time for that date (if it passes). Actually, I'm planning on forgetting all about it, then remembering about it in August or so. At that time, I plan to say "D'oh!".18:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
|Humour:||6||faaaar too close to the truth in someplaces (eg, the first paragraph). but some of the later stuff (like on homosexuality) was quite good when you tied the sentences in repetitive knots and the over emphesis on things actually worked really well, to further twist the homosexuality section say also about those "Homosexuals that do not tolerate homosexuality" (they too exist -- not that i'd know i am not gay(see also people like ted haggard and jesus)). in fact i think you should do that more through-out the article so it becomes more of a joke and not so isolated.
seriously the Oscar Wilde quote isn't nescessary or funny.
i think quite a good area you could
|Concept:||7||The man was a dick. What better way to desecrate his memory than feature a degrading article on the year anaversary of his death? (it really is something to celebrate.) although like i said it's almost too close to the truth to be degrading/satiricle. but i think you've made a good start with it and im frankly surprised no one has done this already (from what i know he was quite a prominant tosser).|
|Prose and formatting:||7||some formmatting issues. the book titles you mention should be italicised not boldened. remove the 'Tinky-Winky' section altogether as you explain that adequitly enough in the captions of one of the pictures and what is there is kinda pointless. also i do think you could expand a little bit into other areas, to give the article some bulk (it only looks huge because of |
|Images:||8||the images in this article aren't inherently hilarious by themselves but the captions you use are some of the funniest lines in the article. although i would move the second picture to where the fourth is just so it's more coherent. and then move the fourth one to a 'personal life/hobbies' section (or if you can't be bothered writing another new section get rid of it as there are too many pics).|
|Miscellaneous:||7||you use the term "[sic]" several times. being grossly under-read i do not know what this means but if it is text speek, like i suspect, get rid of it as it looks unproffesional. (whatever it is could you explain it to me?)|
|Final Score:||35||yeah it's definenitly a good start and could be a lot better if you just tidy up some of the things i've mentioned and maybe add more text.|
|Reviewer:||--orian57 01:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)|
edit Modusoperandi, and his majik emu, Carl, thank you for the review
- Tidied up...formatting is not my strong suit, and dropped most of the external links (I left the Solomon ones in, because they illustrate the point so well and most people, I suspect, haven't read them before). I'll write a "youth/background" section if anything comes to me (writing this was like pulling teeth, but I'm hopeful). "[sic]" is a publishing thing; it follows a misspelled or broken word. It lets you know that the quote as it appears doesn't contain a spelling/grammar mistake ("there" where it should be "their") or a made-up word ("anti-homosexualism"), it's the original source that does. Oh, and the Wilde quote wasn't mine. Someone added it, and it was close enough that I couldn't cut it without feeling terribly guilty.
- As for "What better way to desecrate his memory than feature a degrading article on the year anaversary of his death?", I feel that he's perfectly capable of destroying himself with his own words and deeds (that's why this page is so close to the truth). It may not be the funniest, but it's true. True funny is better than funny funny, sometimes. 03:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)