From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Hello. A guy thinking he was on Wikipedia left a page here awhile ago, Tantra, and I saw he was editing, left him notes, but he ran off when he realized it was a clown site. So I took the page and added funny and pics to it, and edited it to get it into decent shape. Then Funnybony joined in, both of us did more editing, pics and funny, and here we are. Tantra, a trip to the yoga of shagging with intent! Thanks, and no hurry if you take this, the review doesn't have to be done in 24 or 34 hours or anything. Thanks again, Al sans chains 16:20 20 5 mmx
|Fear Not! John Lydon|
is here to Pee all over you!
--—John Lydon 13:07, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
|Humour:||7||Okay, I really think this is unique in the fact that it was written to be a factual article which got abandoned and then retooled to be humorous. In that type of situation subtle humor is going to work best in my opinion. In order to make an article like this work, it was very important that you injected humor without disturbing the "matter of fact" Wikipedia feel of the article. I thought you did this pretty well, but I have a couple of notes. (I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't right?)
I'll start with the most humorous feature of this article. It has to be the linking. I loved how you used the linking to tell jokes for you instead of just replacing the words with something random. This enables the article to retain it's encyclopedic feel, yet injects humor. Which is exactly what you need to pull off to make this piece work. I did notice that in the latter parts of the article, the links started to get a little random and they seemed to be layed on a little thick. All those random links started to make me feel like I was reading through a really long penis joke. I would recommend sifting through them and determining which ones really work (my favorite one was the linking of "what you really adore" to "boobs" by the way) and which ones can be cut. I would highly recommend cutting out the more repetive ones, such as the multiple links to Sting and local. While we're on the subject of links, what's with the Wikipedia links embedded throughout the article? I'm not sure if they were already there or if you added them, but they only serve to confuse the reader. Personally, I was enjoying scrolling over each link, laughing about the subtle use of humor, and then I would hit a Wikipedia link. It honestly confused me and hurt the whole good humor vibe I had going on. I would definately advise removing all of them.
On to item number 2. The babysitter jokes. I think you poured them on a little heavy. The first one made me chuckle, the second made me smile, but by the fifth or sixth one I was shaking my head. Let me explain. Rmemeber that joke about two guys walk into a bar, they both say ouch. I'm sure when someone hears that joke for the first time ever, it's probably funny. After the 700th time, it's just kinda lame. Same thing here. I would advise looking at all the babysitter jokes and weeding out the ones that feel forced in for the sake of saying babysitter. I was going to recommend just taking them out but some of them are pretty good. For instance, under the section about creating an inviting atmosphere, the one about the "closet the babysitter likes best" is funny stuff. It fits in the narrative well and adds humor. Conversely, the "Experiment with clothing or accessories that make you feel sexy, and that have excited your babysitter in the past." at the end of that same section feels like it was jammed in an attempt at humor.
The only other thing I could find that needed work was the way you seemed to jump into first person narration midway through the article. Like I said in the beginning, the matter-of-fact tone of the article is what makes it funny. When you break out of that format, it ceases to be funny. My suggestion would be to take the first person parts such as,"(and how do you think he got his nickname, ladies?)", and make them footnotes. This way the article retains its encyclopedic feel. Also look for spots like the part under "Multiple Orgasms for Men" where you say "Here's how: Contract the PC muscles three times per day, squeezing 20 to 25 repetitions." This isn't a "How to:" article. Fortunately you can easily remedy this by changing just a few words. Instead of saying "here's how" you can simply put "By contracting three times per day, squeezing 20 to 25 repetitions, men can strengthen their PC muscles." That way it still retains that matter-of-fact tone I keep harping about (and is vital to the humor of this article).
|Concept:||5||An article on Uncyclopedia about sex, sexual positions, sexual techniques, etc. is not exactly going to stop traffic. I can't really fault you for the concept behind the article, given the way you salvaged an abandoned piece in an attempt to make it funny. I think you've done well with what you had to work with overall. Expanding on this topic is definately not a good idea. As it sits right now, the length is borderline too much. You may want to consider cutting out anything non vital to the flow of the article. After all, everyone loves a sex joke but no one likes a sex joke that goes on for 30 minutes.|
|Prose and formatting:||7||Pretty good job here. Spelling seems to be in order, and I didn't pick up on any major grammatical errors. There are a few spots where it feels like words are missing, such as the section "Tantra defined" where you have the line "Tantra takes the approach that one should not reject the body and its desires, but actually embrace them, your neighbors them, and your babysitters them on the road to enlightenment." I probably spent 15 minutes reading and re-reading this line but for the life of me, I couldn't figure out what you were trying to convey here. My only conclusion is that there are some words missing here. If you are concerned about this and want a much better opinion than mine, I would advise visiting the fine folks at the Proofreading Service.Other than those few minor errors, the article looks really good from a layout and grammer standpoint to me.|
|Images:||8||Aside from the links, the images were my favorite part. If you put the images on yourself, kudos for that. They fit well and are humorous. If the images were already added, than even bigger kudos because the captions are really good. The only critique I can make here is that the babysitter one seems to be a little random. I think you should try to stick with the whole ancient middle eastern theme. Also, the tiger lady scares me a little.|
|Final Score:||33.8||Based on what you had to work with, I think you've done a really good job making it funny. I can't stress enough how vital keeping that serious feel throughout you article is to the humor aspect. If you ignore everything else I've written, try to focus on that. It will be a huge boost for this article and may even get you an "Atta boy".|
|Reviewer:||--—John Lydon 18:00, June 10, 2010 (UTC)|