Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:TheLedBalloon/Conservapedia

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 23:41, March 5, 2008 by SysRq (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit User:TheLedBalloon/Conservapedia

Myself and several others have been adding to this, and I'm curious to see whether or not it can replace what is there, or just how good it is, or whether I need to be shot... Anyways, yeah. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:00, Mar 4

Sorry I put this off, I swear to god I'll do this first thing tomorrow. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUNWotMRotMAotMVFHSKPEEINGHPBFF @ 03:02 Mar 5
Humour: 8 Well done, somewhat above average work here. Much better than just the standard "lulz conservapedia is full of bigots and horsefuckers" jokes, there's a good level of sophistication here that makes for a very interesting read. The jokes are pretty much solid, with both good setup and execution. Probably one of the better bits in here is the one about "such falsities as "Evolution," which isn't real, "Homosexuality," which isn't real, either..." This is a very nice satirical style for an article on this subject, very appropriate. The only place I would improve this is with a greater saturation of jokes. I stuck with it because I'm reviewing it and this is a topic I found interesting. But there's a couple dry spots that need a good joke or two to break up the parts where it gets a little rantish.
Concept: 9 Very nice here, I loved this concept. The first few lines really got me. This is original, fresh, and hilarious. Plus, you maintained the joke the whole way through. Way to use the Bible to satirize Conservapedia, that's really quite ballsey and you pulled it off nicely. Good job with the general main joke of the article.
Prose and formatting: 7 Your prose is good, and your tone is appropriately passionate. This is great for an article that is supposed to be written by a right winger, as per your ingenious concept. I do, however, have a few complaints on your grammar/spelling/capitalization/etc. I counted just enough errors for it to merit a quick stop at UN:PS. And I know that if I'm spotting errors, there's probably a lot more I'm not seeing. For one, whether you're a Christian or not, the Bible is always capitalized. There were some other, less pious errors throughout the article, so definitely send 'er over to UN:PS before mainspacing this bitch.
Images: 1 I think you already knew what was coming with this. I just can't let this go without saying something about your lack of images. All you have is just the Conservapedia logo, unedited. Shame! It should have been heavily chopped, maybe with a hammer and sickle in the back or a star of David. Come on, give me SOMETHING. Other images would have been nice, too. Perhaps a picture of the founder made to look like Karl Marx? You just need something else to get this score up.
Miscellaneous: 6.3 Avg'd.
Final Score: 31.3 A very nice rewrite. I think I like this one better than the other one. The difference is that I laughed at this one. This one was clever and original. Very nicely done, just get some images on this and you'll be good to go.
Reviewer: ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUNWotMRotMAotMVFHSKPEEINGHPBFF @ 23:41 Mar 5
Personal tools
projects