Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Uncyclopedia:Imperial Colonization/Creationism

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (missed a word, adding it)
 
Line 66: Line 66:
 
as for formatting, there were numerous instances of the section or subsection headings being smushed by pictures directly to the left, for example the heading "Genesis." while this technically isn't a problem, it's a pet peeve of mine and I prefer to have headings firmly out of the way of pictures. please keep in mind however that that is simply my opinion.
 
as for formatting, there were numerous instances of the section or subsection headings being smushed by pictures directly to the left, for example the heading "Genesis." while this technically isn't a problem, it's a pet peeve of mine and I prefer to have headings firmly out of the way of pictures. please keep in mind however that that is simply my opinion.
 
|Iscore=5.5
 
|Iscore=5.5
|Icomment=This is by far the weakest part of the article, and I didn't many of the pictures were relevant or interesting. The captions, based solely on the pictures were ok, but on their own they aren't stellar. I'll go through picture by picture and make comments. I'll include the video under this section as well. Before I start though, the one major thing is the lack of an introduction image for the article. This is something I strongly feel like you should include in the article.
+
|Icomment=This is by far the weakest part of the article, and I didn't think many of the pictures were relevant or interesting. The captions, based solely on the pictures were ok, but on their own they aren't stellar. I'll go through picture by picture and make comments. I'll include the video under this section as well. Before I start though, the one major thing is the lack of an introduction image for the article. This is something I strongly feel like you should include in the article.
 
*Jesus on the raptor, funny image, not relevant to the article imo. I realize that it's left over from the previous article, but I really don't think it adds much to the overall concept. That is however completely my opinion and I would encourage you all to seek out a second opinion on the inclusion of this image, others may find no issue with it.
 
*Jesus on the raptor, funny image, not relevant to the article imo. I realize that it's left over from the previous article, but I really don't think it adds much to the overall concept. That is however completely my opinion and I would encourage you all to seek out a second opinion on the inclusion of this image, others may find no issue with it.
 
*I like the caption for the second picture, but I feel that you guys could find a more interesting picture to go along wit that caption. The lines aren't well defined and it's mostly white, with only those thin black lines to break it up, very boring. I'm sure there's plenty out there that could go along with the caption.
 
*I like the caption for the second picture, but I feel that you guys could find a more interesting picture to go along wit that caption. The lines aren't well defined and it's mostly white, with only those thin black lines to break it up, very boring. I'm sure there's plenty out there that could go along with the caption.

Latest revision as of 16:43, March 2, 2010

FAQ

edit Creationism

The article which is at Uncyclopedia:Imperial Colonization/Creationism (ignore the link above) is ready for review. We need a detailed review. Please do not review this if you actively participated in the colonization--however, any member of IC who didn't work on this article is welcome to review. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 05:18, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

I can get this later, but it will be longer than 24 hours, probably 2 days or a little longer. If that's not ok, please let me know. --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 00:51 EST 28 Feb, 2010
That's OK. Thanks. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 02:13, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
Ok beginning now, could be done in an hour or two or later tonight, depends. --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 11:07 EST 1 Mar, 2010
Humour: 8.75 The way I review, I generally put the majority of my comments and suggestions in the humor section. This allows me to be lazy keep all of my thoughts organized. I'll give you my first impressions after one read through and then go in section by section for a more detailed look.

Initial Impressions

This was highly entertaining to read. I really like what you all have done with this, especially in light of what you're replacing, bravo. I do have some comments and suggestions though that I think will make this an even better article. The one initial thing I would like to point out is that the article is progressive in nature, in that it gets more and more absurd (and entertaining) as you read. This is something that I think is a subtle greatness about your work, but, I would like to point out that there isn't much in the way of the introduction to rope the reader into the article. More on that in a bit.

Section by Section

Introduction

Righty-o then, This is the section I'm probably going to be the most critical of. The thing I think that sticks out the most is the lack of a picture to the right. The introduction picture says a lot about the article, it can deliver a point that the introduction can't make because of the tone or content, it can add visual stimulation to reader, etc. etc. you're all familiar with this. I would encourage you all the find a picture that sums up your article and come up with a witty one-liner to go with it. I'll add my own suggestions later under "images."

As for the text itself, I feel as though you all have jumped the gun in regards to your concept. I would gather that the progressive nature of your article is intentional, therefore I would conclude that you intend for the reader to conclude that the "author" of the article is slowly loosing his grasp of the subject matter (e.g. making creationism appear to be a sound science) as the article draws to a close. The "author's" biases steadily become more visible over time. My problem is, your introduction reveals these biases too soon (albeit in a funny way). I would recommend changing the introduction to match the tone of the beginning of the article, using circular logic in order to make a scientific case for the strict biblical interpretation of creation, rather than displaying the bias upfront (i.e. the last paragraph). Doing this will add consistency to the tone of the article and greater unity of concept. The overall effect would be funnier imo. (not saying you all should make it dry and humorless, just tone the apparent bias down).

Before the Beginning

This is what I'm talking about in terms of progressive tone, this section is one of my favorites. The humor is subtle in that the "author" is using real science in convoluted ways in order to make his points. He also takes a mostly neutral tone. Working the introduction to tie into this lack of initial bias is a good step forward for the overall effect of the article.

The age of the earth; universe

What you guys have here is good, but I feel as though this section is a little short. I feel as though there needs to be some sort of explanation for how the other planets, moons, galaxies, etc. were formed in just 6000 years, or at least have some sort of extra mention of the rest of the universe, as currently it only has a single line.

The Watchmaker

I really like the first two paragraphs of this section, but the third is a little confusing and doesn't reflect the tone of the first two. I honestly don't know why it was included since it has nothing to do with the watchmaker and doesn't reflect the tone taken by the first two paragraphs. I would encourage you all to look at this third paragraph and decide whether the concept is good enough to keep, and if so, find a way to make its intent (and joke) a little clearer.

I really like the false blue-link to "Who could possibly make God?" that had me laughing pretty good.

Genesis

I like the beginning here, but I feel like there could be an extra sentence or two describing the big bang theory, perhaps saying how it is the one area of truth the evolutionists agree is true or something. Also, the last bit, "If they had their way, terrorist bombers who attack nations such as the United States would be able to use the Big Bang as a defense in court!" I feel as though this completely come out of left field, it doesn't fit the overall feel of the article so far and feels excessively goofy. I would reword it or get rid of it to be honest.

as for the rest, I really don't need to touch on it much, simply because it's just genius. There, I said it!

Creationism Vs. Evolution

Again, a good section, but there are a few problems. This sentence, "Creatures whom lived in the pre-creation oceans, then crawled out and grew tails, body hair and thumbs; to become monkeys crawling from the surf to claim beach-front property," needs a revision so that it reads smoother and is more coherent. For example, the verb 'crawl' is used twice and in two different tenses to describe the same action. This, "These "people" traveled inland and eventually started communes, unions, woman's rights groups advocating birth control, and CNN," was exceedingly funny by the way.

Aging the universe

This is where the article really starts to pick up in terms of overt hilarity. I really like what you all are doing concept-wise with this, and I'll touch on that more under concept. however, I do find issue with this: "light from stars that are billions of light years away couldn't have reached us yet. This attempt at circular logic falls flat when you consider this: if those stars are 6,000 light years away..." The "author clearly states the stars are billions of light years away without contesting this and then asserts that the farthest away stars are 6000 light years. something needs to give here for the sake of general believability. Even a foaming at the mouth creationist idiot wouldn't make that mistake. I understand that in terms of the progression of the article that the "author" is supposed to be loosing his grip on making creationism sound plausible as a science, but the error above is a little too much.

The Cambrian Explosion

This section is nearly perfect the way it is, although the "aardvark to zoology" thing threw me off a bit since zoology obviously isn't an animal. other than that, great job on this subsection

The Rest

From here on out hilarity ensues. I was weary of the youtube video embedded in the page at first, but that was a very nice finishing touch for the article. I love the "logical" conclusions of the "author" in terms of what creationism means for the world. The reason this huge pile of nonsense at the end is funny rather than stupid come from the progression of your article, which of course I'll go into greater detail about under concept.

Final Humor Comments

This is a 'very funny article. You guys did a pretty good job turning this into a funny piece of uncyclopedia nonsense. A few revisions and edits here and there and this will be a 9-9.5 in humor in my book.

Concept: 9 Here's what I interpreted your concept as being: The author is a fundamental Christian who is attempting to create an argument for why creationism is legitimate and the truth. He starts out trying to sound rather factual and intelligent, but he quickly looses his grasp and starts devolving into a rant about why creationism proves he and people like him are destined to rule the Earth. If that was the aim, then bravo and well done, if not, then that's how it reads and that's how it should stay.

Like I've mentioned briefly throughout, the progressive nature of the article is the key to the humor; starting off sounding reasonable and slowly unraveling and descending into madness had a great affect the first time I read through. It should be to this end that any major revisions you want to do should be made. The concept is fairly unified throughout, except the introduction, which I touched on in the humor section mostly, so I'll leave it at that.

Prose and formatting: 8.5 For the most part you all did a good job in terms of grammar, syntax, and spelling. There were a few problems though, and there were a few formatting things I'd like to mention.

Under "Creationism vs. Evolution" there are a few grammar and syntax errors. "Evolutionistic reasoning is based on the concept of being spontaneously generating itself." This sentence doesn't read very smoothly. This is mostly due to the fact that my brain kept wanting there to be an article in front of the word being, such as a being. I would find a way to re-word the sentence or just put the article in front of the word.

I feel as though this comma is extraneous as well; "pre-creation oceans, then crawled..." These were the grammar/syntax issues that stood out enough for me to remember after two read throughs. There were others however, but I don't especially feel like combing the article in detail a third time for a few minor and unremarkable errors. Be on the lookout though, and be sure to fic them when they turn up. (or ignore them, honestly people won't know the difference, at least creationists won't)

as for formatting, there were numerous instances of the section or subsection headings being smushed by pictures directly to the left, for example the heading "Genesis." while this technically isn't a problem, it's a pet peeve of mine and I prefer to have headings firmly out of the way of pictures. please keep in mind however that that is simply my opinion.

Images: 5.5 This is by far the weakest part of the article, and I didn't think many of the pictures were relevant or interesting. The captions, based solely on the pictures were ok, but on their own they aren't stellar. I'll go through picture by picture and make comments. I'll include the video under this section as well. Before I start though, the one major thing is the lack of an introduction image for the article. This is something I strongly feel like you should include in the article.
  • Jesus on the raptor, funny image, not relevant to the article imo. I realize that it's left over from the previous article, but I really don't think it adds much to the overall concept. That is however completely my opinion and I would encourage you all to seek out a second opinion on the inclusion of this image, others may find no issue with it.
  • I like the caption for the second picture, but I feel that you guys could find a more interesting picture to go along wit that caption. The lines aren't well defined and it's mostly white, with only those thin black lines to break it up, very boring. I'm sure there's plenty out there that could go along with the caption.
  • This is the best image in the article, good image and good caption. My only suggestion would be maybe to find someone who can animate it so that the circle moves around in the circular fashion, I think that would be fairly funny.
  • This image is ok, it fits within the premise of the article, but I felt the caption was a bit long and jumbled. Simplify it down a bit, but definitely keep the last line intact: "Ergo we cannot be descended from chimps, and must rule them for their own good."
  • The quality of the Cambrian explosion image appears to be a little poor, perhaps some touch up would help it along. The caption, however, needs to be redone, it simply and dryly states what's obviously going on in the picture. I know you guys can be more clever.
  • Same deal here, an average caption with a rather average image. I get the joke you're going for here, but I really think there are better images that could be used here.
  • The same goes for the bush image, I'm sure you could find an Iraq war image that a conservative would choose. Remember, this is an article that is being written in the style of a creationist conservative, the images should reflect this too.
  • The video is great! it's a funny ending to the article, I can't really describe what it is that makes it so wonderful, but its a great ending to the article.
Miscellaneous: 9 my level of enjoyment from reading the article
Final Score: 40.75 If I could only recommend a few things, I would have you all do these three things:
  • redo the introduction to have it fall in line with the overall concept of the article
  • have an image alongside the introduction
  • redo most of the images to better fall in with the concept, i.e., post images that the "author" of the article would most likely include. As always, if you have questions or comments, please don't hesitate to drop me a line.
Reviewer: --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 22:35 EST 1 Mar, 2010
Personal tools
projects