Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Pious Christians Against Shellfish (2nd review)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
|Prose and |
The writing style,
layout and overall
|7.5||Writing style: I like the voice in this one being the neutral encyclopaedic tone, and showing the topic from both sides. I think it is well written and satirical without being in-your-face insulting.
The only criticism that I could place on this is on how subtle the humour is. It is a fairly blatant piece on the stupidity of the far right anti-homosexual agenda, but I think of those satirists that I most admire (John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, The Chaser team, Michael Moore) and look at how direct and over the top they are, and the needle starts to swing the other way. It is a hard balance to get as to do you go completely over the top or keep it sedate. Because of the medium that you're working with you can't go completely over the top, but you don't want it to be too watered down, and although people have disagreed/are disagreeing/will continue to disagree with my perspective, I think you've managed to strike a good balance here.
Spelling & Grammar: Okay, ignoring the Amerikun spelling, there's a bundle of minor changes that suggest making. Most of these are removing the passive voice and colloquialisms to bring the piece more in line with the overall encyclopaedic tone.
And the one last grammatical error may or may not be an error depending on what grammar rules you go by, but normally when you Capitalise something you leave out the prepositions in the capitalisation, so Pious Christians Against Shellfish should/could be Pious Christians against Shellfish. The acronym would still be correct (For example Qantas was originally QANTAS which was the acronym for Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services where the and was a coordinating conjunction and therefore left as lowercase.)
Layout: Right justify the LJS image. Otherwise no issues.
Overall appearance: I would look at changing I have examples of both of these below. This changes the appearance as shown below.
“Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you.”
This text in the middle to demonstrate padding
And this is also to show the padding.
And the last thing that I would suggest is the text that you have used from the Bible seems to have been taken from the New International Version, whereas real right-wingers know that there is only one true inspired word of God, and it is the King James Version of the Bible.
9These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
How good an idea
is behind the article?
|8||I adore the concept here, and the only thing that I would like to see here is a reference to Leviticus 18:22 to illustrate the point somewhat. I think it is one of the classic forms of satire - taking the serious and looking at it in a silly way, to expose the stupidity behind that which is held sacred.
Anybody who appreciates the concept of Monty Python's Life of Brian should appreciate this. Having said that I was attending a Catholic school at the time that movie was released - not everyone appreciates the concept.
How funny is it?
Why is it funny?
How can it be funnier?
|7||This is possibly where the article drops a little, although ironically not because it's unfunny. The problem with the humour in here is that it's not readily accessible. I can see the direct link between the Christian attitude to Shellfish and the Christian attitude to Homosexuality. However, as people may have realised, I have had some exposure to Christianity in the past.
To really appreciate the humour you either have to understand the far right-wing Christian bias against homosexuality and the seeming hypocrisy that is embodied in it.
The other problem here is the controversy. Those who also hold far right-wing beliefs or classify themselves as a Christian may see this as an attack on their religious beliefs. Unfortunately there is little that I can see that would mitigate this, as people are passionate about their beliefs and the fact that everybody else in the world should agree with them.
I would possibly add something in there from the PETA that although there are similarities of belief between the PETA and PCASF they parted ways as PETA are opposed to cruelty but do not take it upon themselves to dictate the moral standards of the community. I'd also change the spokesperson from Pamela Anderson to Jenna Jameson, who is also a supporter of PETA, and has been known to advocate of their behalf for pleather and against KFC. Apparently she doesn't like the taste of meat. Who could have guessed that?
How are the images?
Are they relevant,
with good quality
|8||Minor criticisms here. Again I'd right justify the image of the LJS. If you're able to find the image of a store that has been burnt out that would have a little more of an impact - I'm sure that there's one available out there of somewhere that has been fire bombed. Otherwise let me know and I'll contact a few friends and we'll have a photo for you by tomorrow. I can't do it today as they usually only work under the cover of night.
The logo for the group - are you able to get that as an SVG image as it has a little blur that is ruining the effect.
The article's overall
quality - that indefinable
|8||I've already expressed myself in a couple of places about this already, but I love this article and I think it is a well worked piece of satire and a fantastic addition to Uncyclopedia. I think that every time that you've had feedback in the past you've taken it on board and worked well with it.|
How much can it be
improved and what
are the most important
areas to work on.
|38.5||I'm saying a prayer for your continued success.|
|Reviewer:||Pup t 01:38, 24/07/2009|