Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/People Who Like to Fuck Naked

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 11:09, February 14, 2010 by Matfen (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit People Who Like to Fuck Naked

Please read the page before deciding to do a pee review, and if you feel enthusiastic about going ahead, thank you, and appreciated. I like this page, and am grateful for any thoughts about improvements to the concept. Aleister in Chains

Took a look at the page on a wider screen, and it needs additional material in a couple of places to outpace the photos. I'll put in some stone-age cave drawing data and Egyptology history, that should fill the blank-space up a bit (1/2 done). Aleister in Chains 17:42 9 Feb. MMX
I got this. 24-48 hours--Grue JammyDirectorEye 4WILLExplode 3YOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 03:03, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, take your time. I may work on it at some point in there (the paragraph I spoke of above)Done. The page, as I see it, is a commentary on societal censorship of the fact that we are apes (and this was the concept long before the recent dust-up over another article) and the extremes that it will go to in order to keep that dreadful secret from the public. Although that's never mentioned outright, maybe it should be included, but in subtle language Done. Thanks again, Aleister in Chains 11 Feb. MMX
Ok, I wont be able to get this done in time due to my conflicting schedule, so if anybody wants do it they can. sorry--Grue JammyDirectorEye 4WILLExplode 3YOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 12:18, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

I can haz does it tomorrow?--Matfen 15:12, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

I can haz does it today? --Matfen 09:21, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
Prose and
  Formatting:

The writing style,
spelling, grammar,
layout and overall
appearance.
8 Your prose is mostly well written and easy to understand. A small problem I found with the article was the links to wikipedia. I hate links to wikipedia on Uncyc. Just seems a bit pointless. Do we really need a link to the twenty-fifth dynasty of egypt? I could partially understand, as we are a quite a limited wiki, if there was not an article available, but you've done double links for Clara Bow and Anais Nin.

On the Advice for the Novice section, it's evident you're using link humour to point out just how perverse Wikipedia articles can be. However, you may wish to cut back on some, as so many of them aren't that easy on the eyes, format-wise.

Just a sentence that didn't quite make sense: "who still cringed at the images (of?) such a bizzare practice pumped slowly and deeply into their thoughts and dreams."

Concept:
How good an idea
is behind the article?
8.5 Taking what is supposedly considered as a natural act and turning it into a deviant perversion is a good concept. Tracking its historical development is also a good spin. The "Advice for the Novice" section reads a little bit like a how-to, but it doesn't feel too misplaced in an article which has mostly been tracking its development.
Humour:
How funny is it?
Why is it funny?
How can it be funnier?
7 Here's the thing. I didn't laugh very much. Most probably because I don't find much stuff on uncyclopedia very funny anymore. I can tell it's well written, and the ideas are there. It just personally, to me, wasn't to my taste. It'd be interesting to see how people would react to this on VFH. I'm often at odds with most voters, so this article could do well.

One thing that should definitely be removed though, is the "A Few Famous People Who Like to Fuck Naked" section. Any Uncyclopedian worth his Oscar Wilde dinnerplate memorabilia will tell you they hate pointless lists... and the username tag. And to be honest, the only name I recognised on it was the Olsen twins (yum!) and Garfunkel and Oates (yuk!). Lists also especially looks stupid when the next section is a see also. The Olsen twins might work there, as a funny way of implying they do it, without being so direct. It'd make more sense if there weren't enough celebrities who owned up to fucking naked to make a list.

Most of my gripes with this article are with the images.

Images:
How are the images?
Are they relevant,
with good quality
and formatting?
6 I think the main focus of this article is the images, especially in its current state. So I'll go through them one by one.
  • 1: I wouldn't go so far as to say the first image in this article is pornographic, but for some reason I find it really disturbing. WTF is that thing!? It looks like some kind of muppet that went through an S&M club. I'm not gonna recommend you get rid of it, just know that it scares the bejeesus out of me. And I sat through Evil Dead and was only slightly terrified. If you can find something better after taking all my advice into heart, I'd do that though.
  • 2: I like the Clara Bow image, as it satirically brings to mind how conservative people used to be in the past. It reminds me of a Family Guy sketch, where Peter watches some pornography from the 1930's; a woman voting.
  • 3: The dog one is my favorite. Couldn't stop laughing at it for some reason. The caption was good, too.
  • 4: Again, I like the stick figure is a good one. Much more suggestive without being perverse or pornographic. The key to many great articles based on taboo or controversial subjects is how subtle and less blunt they can be about it. I noticed you actually link to the Monkey Poop article on this. Would it be better if there was a Gif showing a monkey throwing poop at someone? Well, that could actually be quite funny. This was a crap example, but you get what I mean. You will with #5 because...
  • 5: Is err... difficult to put into words. While I enjoyed looking at it, and was also kind of depressed at how it was probably fake, I couldn't help but feel that it was just a half-assed attempt to slip pornography into an article. After half an hour of staring at it, I decided to read the Caption which kind of reigns it in. Doing that, I also noticed it seemed to be part of an uncyclopedia meme that extends to another page, further justifying it's use. This could just be the perverted side of me subconsciously trying to get it kept, as it still might breach the barrier of bad taste. This was what I mean with image #4. Suggestiveness is just a lot more funny, while if this were on VFH, the male-dominated userbase might be inclined to vote for other aspects, rather than its true comedic value, as some did with your Anne Hathaway article. Either way, this would be great on OptimusChris' super secret girlie page.
Miscellaneous:
The article's overall
quality - that indefinable
something.
7.4 Averaged using Pee.
Final Score:
How much can it be
improved and what
are the most important
areas to work on.
36.9 The article isn't too bad. If you try to get it featured though, you should be wary that the pornography pictures will either endear or repel voters. A bit like the disgusting act that is Fucking Naked.
Reviewer: --Matfen 11:06, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects