Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnDebate:Is it morally unacceptable to have babies?
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
- this is the review that is actually mine. -- 19:48, Sep 7
|Humour:||9||I laughed out loud a few times during the article, and it kept a smile on my face the entire time.|
|Concept:||8||I ate this shit right up, and licked the plate clean. Taking some recent (I think, at least I only heard about it recently) stuff, turning it into a debate, and managing to keep the two sides with a different voice/persona to them. All good. Plus I love the UnDebate concept, and haven't seen it before.
I think a couple extra questions wouldn't hurt, as could help build show the changes of the No's side's emotions from starting with a logical set of arguments and going to "Ah, fuck it. I give up."
Another idea, that may or may not be useful, but is still an idea is you could flesh out who the two people are. It might ruin it, I really don't know, but it's an idea!
|Prose and formatting:||7||You have very good grammar and spelling. I can tell you spent a lot of time making sure everything sounded right. The first time I read through it I didn't have to re-read any sentences to try and figure out their meaning, which is important. You pulled off a very non-encyclopedialishous tone well in my opinion.
My first complaint is when we get to "Immigration: Is a government justified in discriminating against more fertile immigrants?" the YES side starts using caps and such, when it had previously been calmly stating its facts beforehand. I don't see any reason in the NO side for him to suddenly start yelling, unless he got a bit more provocation.
I also think that the debate is almost one sided in that the YES side gives his opinion, then the NO side not only gives his opinion, but also is able to respond to the other side. Due to how people read, it is logical for the left side to be "talking" first, but I feel like the YES side is being excluded on giving feedback. While this may have been your intention, as it's often that people with extreme views don't even listen to the other side, from a reader's perspective it feels a little odd. Why can't the YES side critique the NO side? This makes the YES side sad.
For the "Population crisis? - Does a potential population crisis inhibit one's right to reproduce?", I feel like the NO side is merely reacting to the YES, not really giving their own opinion or input on the matter except for the word "No" at the top.
Also, I feel like the NO side's emotions are fucked up. They start off with "What the fuck are you saying?"! I feel like it would be better to build to this kind of confrontation, instead of that being the first thing out of his mouth. The middle couple of arguments on that side are more what I would expect to start out with, and having it build to responses like the first couple.
So from two previous paragraphs I would say that you should try and make it a more gradual or linear change between the two having a calm debate to one going "Ah, fuck it. I give up." and the other yelling (if the yelling is even necessary). To do that, I would examine the order of the questions, and try to possibly re-arrange them. Right now their emotions and such don't feel linear/realistic as I go from the beginning to the end of the article, which really kills my mood. If you weren't ever aiming for it to be that way, then sorry, but that's what I think would add to it.
|Images:||7||I was torn on what to give you for this, as the style of the article really does severely limit the number of images you have. The one image you have is really fucking good though. 100% perfection on that one. And I guess the header that you made (I think you made it, I haven't seen any other UnDebates before) works out quite nicely, regardless of screen sizes that I've used. I really don't know if there are any ways to add more images.
One idea I can think of (and I'm unsure if it would even be good for the overall quality of the article) is some graphs or some such stuff "supporting" someone's argument. I really don't know if that would help overall, or be detrimental to the article. If you can find a great way to put it in, then hell ya. But definitely don't force any more.
I think you found one of the few ways to have not very many images at all, yet still have it feel adequate for the article, which is impressive. It earned you as high of an image score as you did. Otherwise would have been probably a 4 or 5 here.
|Miscellaneous:||9||The number of letters in "Oliprosux". I really loved the article, and feel like the image score, while is true for the images (or lack thereof), doesn't really do the article justice since it is not really in a format that is friendly to images, so want to compensate for it.|
|Final Score:||40||The ban warning at the bottom kicks ass. This article overall kicks ass. A little polishing and I think it should definitely pass VFH (if it doesn't already how it is!). Also, I would like to add that for each section, the first paragraph is what I wrote first, and additional things I thought of were added next. So the first paragraphs of sections are what stood out first.|
|Reviewer:||-- 20:39, Sep 7|