Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Uncyclopedia Madness
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
- Wait... should I knwo about Uncyc in jokes before reviewing this? Staircase CUNt 02:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Reefer (Desk) Madness! —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Only a few, which shouldn't be that hard to figure out. Most are present in the last section with the quotes. For the most part, you're good. The tentacle rape, placenta eating, and heroin devouring are not in-jokes. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 05:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ok alright. I'll take this one. I can't tonight, but I will tomorrow. Btw, I LOVE your articles, namely Really Big Tree. They rock. Staircase CUNt 05:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
|Humour:||6||So I'm going to do this with the section-by-section... yada yada yada.
Overall, you have a nice little article here. I don't really see it as VFH quaality, but it is still something to be proud of. The main thing you have to do, in my opinion, is add other jokes besides tentacle rape and nigerain e-mails to the plot section because, like I said, it got a little boring to read. However, the rest was pretty solid, maybe add some jokes to the Recption, but the rest was pretty good.
|Concept:||6.5||Now, operating seven as an average score, I give you a six and a half, which is slightly below. I have seen my share of articles about Uncyclopedia's in jokes, but this is pretty unqiue and interesting. However, there were a couple confusing parts that I mentioned above that seemed a bit conflicting when it came to concept, which lowered your scorea little. First, you had the Wikia Must Burn!, which was unrelated to the article. I think you should either change that part, or mention something about Timmy starting to hate Wikia while he was on Uncyclopedia. Sceond, you have the part regarding the year of the movie. I think you were going with 1936 for the black-and-white approach, but I think a little clarifcation is needed, because Uncylopedia was made in 2004. Third, you had too much emphasis on just a couple jokes in you plot as opposed to a larger number. I think that yuo should add a couple more jokes from Uncyclopedia so it doesn't get boring to read. And, lastly, we have the law suit. I'm not sure if that tpart of the joke, or if you just put it down wrong. If it was part of the joke, feel free to leave it. If it wasn't, I suggest you change it. The bottom line: You had a few minor problems with the smaller concepts in your article. However, they are easy to fix and the overall concept was solid.|
|Prose and formatting:||9||Your prose was pretty much perfect. I didn't see any mistakes in speling, and grammer, etc. So good job for that. However, as for formatting, I have one thing to point out. The ending seemed a bit abrupt, and I think that you should maybe add another section between memorable quote and see also. I have no I dea what, but the look of those two right next to each other seemed a bit odd-looking. Maybe you could put a section for Production? I'm not sure. This isn't all that important, but it is something that gave my eye a little bit of annoyance. The bottom line: Great job in this.|
|Images:||7||Personally, I see nothing wrong with your images. The movie poster was well made. Theother ones were not special, but they weren't unecessary and stupid. I don't really have anything to suggest here, so this section is abit scimpy. One thing I might say is that you had solid images, but none of them really supplied laughs; they weren't funny images and didn't have funny captions that much either. This isn't a huge problem, but to tie in the rest of the article, maybe you should make the captions funny or something.|
|Final Score:||35.6||You have a decent article, but it can be fixed up.
You do have a good artilc e here. Like I said, I don't really see it as VFH, but it is always nice to have a good article to be proud of. Good luck with fixing it, and welcome back, apparently.
|Reviewer:||Staircase CUNt 16:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)|
Thank you for your pee. The year bit is a joke, as well as Uncyclopedia suing for accuracy. I think that the plot section being a bit long is probably exaggerated by the images, but I'll work on it. The repetition of pronouns is a bit necessary -- the only ways to really fix this are to switch to the third person, which you can only do so much which can be weird if you're continually switching from second to third, or to write passively, which makes it even more boring. Switching from passive to direct can also be very off-putting. I'll see what I can do though.
The only problem I'd have with incorporating too many in-jokes is that A. In-jokes do not appeal to everyone, particularly those that are not as familiar with them, be it regular users or regular readers, and B. Because of this, I'd have to explain the in-jokes a bit, which waters them down. With the ones that I have, I've left them with a link. A few more wouldn't hurt though. I just changed his iPod to a Euroipod. :)