Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnNews:Wikipedia Re-Labelled “Pornopedia” By Conservatives

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit UnNews:Wikipedia Re-Labelled “Pornopedia” By Conservatives

Believe it or not I can write things other than reviews. Also, not meaning to sound pretentious or anthing, but i'd like an experiaced reviewer to review this for me.

Have Fun! MuCal. Orian57|Chat|Chuckle|PEE List|Awarded|UnBlog|Icons-flag-gbOrian57 19:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nopee PrIP'd!
Pee Review In Progress
Checkit bitches, this review is as good as peed on. I'm marking my effing territory. Said article is being reviewed by:
~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUNWotMRotMAotMVFHSKPEEINGHPBFF 

I'm on the case! ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUNWotMRotMAotMVFHSKPEEINGHPBFF @ 22:00 May 9

Humour: 8 Hehe. This definitely elicited some giggles from yours truly. I always enjoy articles that mock conservatives, and this certainly lived up to expectations. Maybe that's because making fun of conservatives isn't that hard. As is the case with most UnNews articles, the opening is the most important part. You've got a strong first line: "The lid was sucked off Wikipedia's evil liberal sex scandal today when one of our hardcore thought police members, Sally Kern, "stumbled across" an article on "strip-teasing"..." However, there's room to improve. Replace the word "hardcore" with "leading" or "senior", something to make this sound more legit. You've got a good theme going of trying to sound like you're actually buying this crap, but you're still patchy in areas. Work on making the article more consistent with your theme. Stress that Wikipedia is evil. You need to write like a conservative. Conservatives make many assumptions about their readers when they write. These assumptions include that liberals are evil, and that everything is pretty much black and white. Try to develop your article with this mindset. You've done a good job so far, but you could make it better. See Conservapedia for a good example of this. Another good article that features an assumed mindset is the Stephen Colbert article. That article is consistent and always in character, like the Conservapedia article. Work on this, it's very difficult writing but I'm sure you can get this article up to that level with just a little effort.
Concept: 8 What makes this article so funny, in my opinion, is that it's real. One could almost accuse you of plagiarizing the article you cited. The absurdity of reality makes for the funniest material. You've done a good job of capturing the essence of truth that needs to be in an article of this nature, as well as citing other true aspects of this issue (like this line: "...video footage which [Ted Haggard] has, rightly, denounced as being 'nothing like what he experienced'") But there's still room to be inventive here. I'm sure there's some other angle you could work into this to make it absolutely absurd. Even just little jokes here and there would spice things up. Have Mark Pelligrini whip it out and start wanking during the interview. Have the concerned conservatives make all of the links on pornographic Wikipedia pages link to abstinence sites. Something else to make it just slightly more absurd.
Prose and formatting: 7 This was going to be an eight for your prose, but your grammar and spelling is, quite frankly, atrocious. You really need to evaluate your sentence structure. Some of those run-ons are just ghastly. But notice that you've still got a seven. That's because I thought your formatting was good, as well as your tone. I already addressed where you could improve on this in the humor section, but you already do a pretty good job of writing from a different perspective. I like that so far, but it could certainly be a lot better. Such articles are always very entertaining to read.
Images: 7 Decent images. The second one is pretty gross, but it's got its purpose. First one is lifted directly from the source article. It's just as appropriate here as it is there, and it really conveys that message of censorship and shame for sexuality and the human body.
Miscellaneous: 7.5 Avg'd.
Final Score: 37.5 I thought this was a great article that cashed the check that it signed rather well. It still has much potential to be incredible, though. I wouldn't VFH it yet, but looking at your scores, you're so close to being there. Hopefully my advice was somewhat helpful, and sorry for making you wait 24 hours for this review. =/
Reviewer: ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUNWotMRotMAotMVFHSKPEEINGHPBFF @ 23:39 May 11
Personal tools