Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:SysRq/Abortion

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 03:54, December 10, 2008 by TheLedBalloon (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit User:SysRq/Abortion

Alright, so here's the third article I'm gonna try and get reviewed since my return to Uncyc. And yet, none of them have been reviewed yet. Curious. Anyways, this article is actually up at the Turkey Day Ball, so I really want to know if this is going to stand any chance of winning. And whether it wins or not, I want to know if this is a good enough rewrite to replace the existing Abortion article, which isn't terrible. PEEING members only, please, as usual. Thanks in advance. sirErr.gifsysrq @ 03:34 Dec 7

OK, I'm not a peeing member, but I'm going to tell you what I thought when I read your article, and you're going to listen, OK? I'm also not going to make this fit the template, just because I don't want to. I think this is a good article. The reason for this is that it's actually satire. You've skilfully avoid dumb, unfunny jokes, and rather just go for presenting the opposite of popular opinion. The major joke here (that abortion is good), did bore me a little bit by the end, but I can see you have tried to diversify this with sub-jokes like how people get pregnant, and the vacuum cleaner stuff.
Some bits I didn't get. I'm not saying that they're wrong because I didn't understand, just letting you know that this reader (sample size 1) didn't understand, hence didn't find them funny.
  • Roe vs Wade. I'm assuming this was a real court case, but I've never heard of it before.
  • German Shepherds??
Also, you need a reference for your "truly beautiful... a work of art" quote.
Aaadddaaammm 17:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Rebuttal!
Thanks for taking interest, and I appreciate you respecting my request for PEEING members. Your words are spot on, your praise appreciated, your advise noted. Just to let you know, Roe v Wade is the American court case decision in 1970 in which a woman's right to an abortion was protected. The names I used in that section are the real names of the attorneys and "Jane Roe" (her name actually was Norma L. McCorvey). Most Americans will, or should, at least understand that Roe v Wade is a real court case.
The German Shepherd bit is admittedly weak. I only used it to have something to reference later on. It's a cheap humor technique I've used with varying success in the past. If it's just too out there, I can remove it; before I do that I'm going to wait for a full review from someone else, no offense.
Thanks again, you've given me some reassurance that I don't suck at this "writing" deal. I just hope this is as offensive as I intended it to be. sirErr.gifsysrq @ 19:40 Dec 7
I presume you're still up for a PEEING member to come up and review this. I have several family members who are torn on the abortion subject, so I'm glad to see a humourous veiwpoint on it. I'll pop out a review before midweek, or perhaps abort it by tomorrow. --Nachlader 21:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Absototalutely, Nachalader. Nothing would delight me more than a review from one of my favorite young reviewing talents. All I ask is that it happen sometime before the 11th if you think you could manage, as that's when the judging begins for Turkey Day Ball. Thanks in advance! sirIgnignokt.gifsysrq @ 22:00 Dec 7
I'll just do it today then. --Nachlader 23:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Humour: 8 Superb, incredulous, site-defining cynical humour, written by someone who clearly has an idea about what he's doing (and I don't mean any article, this is the kind of joke you do not share at dinner, so a careful, but up-front writer is desired here), that is yet certainly more than ripe for improvement, even if it is almost certainly spectacular humour in it's current state. The article reeks of strong thought and hindsight on your behalf, it is evidently well planned and executed beautifully with one clean swipe of the axe.

Even though I'd agree to leave this article unedited forever in all it's glory, I still have a few ideas you might want to consider, that could potentially strengthen the article still.

Concept: 7 Excellent, straightforward concept. A clever, but simple reversal tool that states abortion as a form of pleasure, which is ridiculous gold, but gold nonetheless (a similar joke is used in castration, where the author suggests you use a mallet to hit your private parts with, resulting in a euphoric sensation). However, I am concerned that the article has less content than I thought it would have. If you agree with this view, I have several ideas to help fatten the article up for the evil witch bitch who lives in the house made of sweets.

There are a few areas of this particular topic you could've taken a humour toll upon. Abortion, as everyone knows, is a topic of much debate in the gossip circles of chattering nannies. However any potential parody of an "abortion is 'rong" debate is rendered fruitless by your concept, which states that most people are in favour of it. Although, you could do further to antagonise real self-pleasure devices (dildos, vibrators, chocolate, etc) that females use, to propose good in favour of abortion. With the harrowing debate on whether abortion should be legal or not, you could do the same here by dictating that the "pleasures of abortion has overtaken the tool of Satan that is a filthy dildo". Something along those lines anyway.

Furthermore, in the "Innovations in Abortion" section, there is a list opportunity I think, but certainly not without each item boasting a description. It would certainly strengthen, what I think is, the weak line that concludes the section. I have a few suggestions forthwith:

  • Handheld vacuum. This mobile, miniture sucking contraption and has literally blown the dildos and the vibrators out of the market, replacing the former clockwork, dateless and ineffective tools as the number one self-pleasure device choice of women everywhere. (Note: An image may be required to refresh the reader's mind of this this tool, seen here:[1])
  • Adult sized baby back mat. With so few babies being born these days, there are simply thousands of baby-back mats (for changing... nappies and... God, who'd want a baby!?) going to a waste. However, knit a few of the mats together, and you have your very own adult sized baby-back mat that you can lie on and do the dirty deed that is abortion. Couple this with the hand-held vacuum and you'll have a DIY abortion theatre!
  • Seperate fetus recycling/disposal system. As any woman will tell you, there are hundreds of books authored by mad feminists detailing each of the 1001 uses for an (undead) fetus. In fact, they possess more uses than paper or even plastic. So many, that a seperate disposal system is needed to ship the baby meat off to the dump. (Note: A bit weak)

I was also considering suggesting some kind of a spork, but I think readers find it a tad too overused on this site. Also, a reference note explaining the German Shepherds may help the reader. It confused Aaaaaaaaaaaaadddddddddddddddaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmmmmmmmm anyway it seems.

One other note: as a foreigner to your star-spangled land, it can be quite awkward when an article talks about a topic that is pretty general for the world, but the article only ever mentions it in one nation, in this case, America. I wholeheartedly understand the sensitivity in America towards abortion, but that same furore exists elsewhere. If you really want to stick to your guns, at least start sentences off with "in the world, particularly in the USA" and the like. Cowabunga, man?

Prose and formatting: 7 Nothing problematic here, although as mentioned above, there isn't as much content as the potential warrants, in my opinion anyway. Text hunger aside, the prose is confluent and free of typos, the grammar is well solicited and kept warm in a home. The organisation is propped up well, although on one leg it seems, as some text is seperated from paragraphs ("Other innovations in abortion include comfortable recliner seats with cupholders, and membership cards similar to those at recreation centers for speedy check-ins. " looks lonely) and of course, what I've already mentioned, the fact that the content is a bit starving makes the sections appear insignificent.

One minor note: Consider removing the red link to Bill Donohue, which is in the "Public opinion" section, although the lad sounds like he could do with an article himself. Also, don't forget to categorise the article should you happen to move it, though I'm sure you'll remember to do that anyway.

Images: 8 Certainly very good, three good images supply much mirth for an article of this length. The first image is a bit big, justified only that it adds instant humour value to the reader upon first sight of the article, although I'd still consider resizing it a bit. The second image is a bit sickening, but eventually is fucking fantastic for the article (I noticed this image was from the other abortion article, so well done for attempting to salvage something from that wreckage). The third image is, in my veiw, strictly necessary for an article on abortion, even if it lacked a caption.

The only suggestion I could make is a picture of a handheld vacuum, if you choose to implement my suggestion in the concept section of this review that is. I haven't actually seen one in years, so the notion of a vacuum cleaner that is held by one hand may not appear obvious to some slow minds.

Miscellaneous: 7.5 Average'd.
Final Score: 37.5 Were Uncyclopedia less suceptible to interweb-wide scrunity this way, I'd be off to VFH in a second to see this nom'd. However, it seems the place for this article is the Turkey Day Ball, the alternative competition for dangerously offensive articles. However, I've not seen the other entrants yet, so I wouldn't know if this article is tipped for the top.

Regarding the current article on this subject, I'm very sure no-one will notice if you abort that article and do your own orgasmic abortion business all over it. As for my suggestions, I've no idea if you are willing to add any more content or ideas to this article, so in either case, I believe the article is deservant of a good score in it's current state.

Reviewer: --Nachlader 23:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


You really shouldn't be getting pee reviews for stuff in the Aristocrat's competition, SysRq... - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:20, Dec 8

Oh...am I disqualified or something? I won't edit it until the judging is complete, if that helps any. Nachlader, thanks a TON for the review. I'll properly thank you later, but I can't respond to TLB and not say a word about this fantastic review. TLB, I hope I'm not in trouble or anything. I only got a review because after I wrote this I thought that maybe this would make for a good "real" article and wanted feedback before mainspacing it. (after the competition ends, of course) sirIgnignokt.gifsysrq @ 15:11 Dec 9
Yeah, just don't edit your page until after the competition, and it's no big deal. Cheers, - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:54, Dec 10
Personal tools
projects