Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Joe Biden (quick)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
I know the article is ugly. I am concerned about the writing because the content determines what the pictures will look like and where they will go. hint: Every joke is based on, or contains, a factual element. If facts aren't your cup of tea (i.e. you're stupid), then go here.
126.96.36.199 00:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
PEE REVIEW IN PROGRESS
of giving you his opinion and pretending you care.
|Humour:||6||So, I'm guessing you're User:Projectjulio but you didn't log in? Okay, here comes a quick pee review.
Here are my general thoughts.
1. There's some hilarious stuff in here. Favorite lines: "His wife and children, prior to the 2008 Presidential Election, had frequently mistaken Biden for various pieces of household furniture"; "Delaware is the smallest state in the U.S., second only to Rhode Island and Queen Latifah" (although shouldn't that be "third-smallest"?); and "According to various sources, Joe Biden was also part of the 2008 Election Process, though no one interviewed for this story even knows who or what a "Joe Biden" is." (although that sort of flips us between "this is an encyclopedia article" and "this is a piece of journalism" - you might want to clear that up).
There are also serious problems, and here they are.
1. Some sentences try to cram in so many jokes that they become almost unreadable. Example:
Just try to read that out loud. It's a mess. And when you remove the parenthetical, it's hard to tell what it even means.
2. This article has a "brow" problem, in that it tries to be highbrow and lowbrow at the same time, and fails at both. People who show up to read about how Joe Biden fucked 97 black women are going to be annoyed by all the external links and references to 2008 election minutae. And people who show up to laugh smugly because they like being "in the know" are going to be turned off by fecal Coprophagia. I say: pick a side and stick with it. You can't get it both ways.
3. The "Death" section. What the fuck is this?
Also, I'd lose the references to Obama being a terrorist. That joke is just fucking played out.
|Concept:||8||There are basically two kinds of Uncyclopedia articles: ones with very specific concepts, like Martin Van Buren, and ones that just try to parody every possible aspect of the subject, like Robert Mugabe. The former usually makes me laugh more, but the second seems somehow more "pure" and less like cheating. I don't know. This article is obviously the second, and there's no problem there.|
|Prose and formatting:||5||There are definitely problems with the prose. There are commas where there shouldn't be, apostrophes where there shouldn't be, and just too many parentheticals (consider using footnotes instead sometimes!) You might want to run it by the guys at UN:PS and see if they can fix it up. The formatting, as you mentioned, needs some work.|
|Images:||5||I don't like the cunnilingus caption much - too obscene for this article. Obama is fine. It's almost never a good idea to use Gary Larson comics, because they're already funny and makes us look like we couldn't think of any jokes so we stole a famous one. As for Shaft, well... meh. The whole "Biden-as-shaft" section doesn't work for me at all.|
|Miscellaneous:||7||Seven, I guess.|
|Final Score:||31||It's not a bad article. It's definitely not ready for feature yet, though. I'll give it a 31. Generally, 35 means "it's a solid article" and 40 means "it might deserve to be featured."|
|Reviewer:||09:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)|