Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Releasimification (4th review, i think)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Releasimification

Ok, here i am again groveling for some experienced Uncyclopedian to look at my meager work. I really just wanted a second or third opinion on my article. thanks/cheers-Bobofosho2 23:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Bobofosho2 23:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Since everyone else seems to be ignoring it, I'll do it. --Gladstone Rt Hon W E Gladstone MP GOM | Converse | Icons-flag-gb Yorks Rose 08:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Humour: 1.2 OK, so what we have here is the fourth review of an article. Reading through the comments of previous reviews, they have been almost completely ignored, which doesn't really bode well, particularly given the score the article received last time out. Anyway...

(Again, template copied stolen borrowed from Cajek)

  • Opening quotes/paragraph -2- The quotes are bad. I mean, why Spielberg? He's not noted for anything other than making (mostly) great films - he's no wit, nor does he pretend to be. The quotes don't add anything, although they do kind of get to the one key point of the article - it's OK to rape women, as long as you do it throuh a black pimp. In fact, it's desirable. That's a really crap concept for an article, quite frankly.
The opening paragraph really isn't funny. It's no funnier saying "releasimification involves going to a pimp to get laid" than it would be to say "releasimification involves driving slowly down high street in your dressing gown trying to pick up a hooker without getting royally busted by the cops". There's little inherently funny about picking up hookers - if you're going to try and make jokes out of it, try and find an angle which works. When I say angle, what I mean is "in a way which doesn't involve saying the same thing in crap fake black speak".
  • The Origins of Releasimification -1- This section is just rambling bollocks I'm afraid. To paraphrase: He raped them. They resisted at first. Then they started to be better. That's not humour, that's a sick fantasy.
  • How to Releasimify Yo' Slutty Dancer/Actress -1- Another section which was slated and yet no attempt has been made to change it. I can't really add anything to what SysRq said - more silliness, more mocking stereotypes, more boring writing. And the last is unfortunately the worst of all - it's dull, boring, unfunny and almost painful to read.
  • The Legality of Releasimification in the U.S.A./The Great Releasimifiers Strike of 1995 -1- Yet more unchanged trash. A couple of points, to add to those made previously: 1) If you write something in capitals on the internet like 'FACT' or 'LEGAL', it can usually be taken to mean, "I've no clue what I'm talking about, but if I write it in capital letters it might look like it is, in fact, true or legal." 2) It completely loses track of its (admittedly flimsy) theme. Is it rape, or is it women sleeping their way to the top?
  • Extremist Releasimifiers -1- Nope, still not getting any better. Basically, there's a group of extremists who will rape the actresses outright, rather than trying to pretend it's somehow not quite rape?
Concept: 1 I just think it's a really poor concept. I was generous in my first review - it was a new work in progress and it could have been something. It has just studiously failed to get any better, at any point.

The basic premise you're working to is "rape is funny". Now, most would say it's not, but if you hit the right note it can be in a sort of gross out way (Did you know that, statistically, 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape?). So if you're going to do an article about rape, make it into something funny - be clear about your message and gross people out, don't try and dress it up as pseudo-black nonsense.

Prose and formatting: 2 Since you haven't changed it between the previous review and this, I'll repeat that score and comment. SysRq's Review is very clear about it - the prose is inconsistent, the grammar is poor, the formatting weak. You've added no links, either to or from the page - it's just dead space. You get 1 additional point for making up the word 'petomaphiles' which sounds like it ought to be something bad, even though it's actually meaningless.

A grammar tip, so I can at least be seen as being helpful rather than just slating it:

Check your use of quotes and inverted commas. Quotes should look like this:

He said, "This article is bobbins."

When you've got two people saying something, they should be in different paragraphs:

He said, "This article is bobbins."
"Yes," I replied, "I can't believe I wasted the last 30 minutes of my life on it."

Inverted commas are useful for emphasis - 'loosen up' should be in inverted commas rather than quotes.

Images: 4 Well, you've got rid of the previous paint image... And replaced it with a picture which adds little more to the piece. And the caption - why be so dull - why not have something like "Sid McCoy's shop class carving was adopted as the mascot of the SPR" or something slightly more irreverent.
Miscellaneous: 2.1 Averaged
Final Score: 10.3 Scores so far:
  • 14.7 - me, though that was very much a work in progress.
  • 27.2 - Hyperbole, which was a long, in depth review with quite a lot of guidance on how you could make it better.
  • 11 - SysRq, which was again another in depth review.
  • 10.3 for this review, only brought up by not having really really really bad images.

Since the last review, there has been one picture changed, and the Extremist Releasimifiers section added. Seriously, it's a waste of everyone's time asking for Pee Review after Pee Review trying to find someone to gratfiy your ego and tell you it's funny.

Being nice, my advice would be to go away and think about what you want to achieve from the article. What is the joke? Are you writing a gross-out piece about rape being good, a parody of black culture or a witty insight into the life and career of a TV icon?

Being honest, my advice would be to nominate the article for deletion and start all over again, but this time with a clear idea of your aims and what the joke is.

Reviewer: Gladstone Rt Hon W E Gladstone MP GOM
Personal tools