Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User: WarWalrus/How To: Ram your cock down a pipe

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit User: WarWalrus/How To: Ram your cock down a pipe

WarWalrus (talk) 11:47, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

The title caught my eye, so I'll review it. --Murder Frog Dull interest wanes. 21:47, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

Humour: 7.5 For the most part, the concept is used pretty well and it is funny, dirty humor (but of course, only if the reader thinks that way, which is what makes it even better). The problem with this is that because you are actually talking about a cockerel, you need to make sure that everything in the article fits with that to make it funny both ways you think about it. For example, the part about the cock spurting "foul-smelling liquid"; what is that liquid? I know the poor creature doesn't die, so that was a little confusing to me. And also little things like the rammer "flailing his arms" when he should be holding on to his cockerel. If minor things like that got fixed up or more stuff that works for both the animal and the organ was added, then it would make the article a lot easier to understand and provide it with even more lulz than it already has. Just thinking about what I would do, perhaps a little more information about the art of cock-ramming would add some humor. Additionally, I think that using the {{Tip}} template on some of your sections about how to better do this thing is a good idea. Be really official with this thing. As I'll say later, however, I think that the humor and the concept have both been used quite a bit before both on Uncyclopedia and elsewhere, which sort of brings down the strength of the two. Still, I did see that Sir Frosty provided his enthusiasm for the article on the talk page, so there defiantly are different ways of looking at this.
Concept: 7 I get the whole concept, and its actually pretty good, but the thing is that its been used before and there's even something like it on VFH right now: HowTo:Beet off. Nevertheless, it is a good way of making people laugh; turning their own sick minds on themselves, so it is an adequate, funny article that is great for Uncyclopedia. It's just that its not the most original thing in the book of humor. Additionally, I found it slightly hard to believe, people shoving birds down a pipe for pleasure. But in another way, you could just see that at one of the things that makes Uncyclopedia so fucking awesome, its occasionally twisted, disturbing humor!
Prose and formatting: 7.5 Overall, pretty good. There are some places where commas should be added and letters should be capitalized to make it look fresher and more delicious. The main thing I would say is to try and make it a little more formal-sounding, since this is supposed to be a "serious-looking" and official informative resource. Sometimes your article sounds just a little too informal and should strive to be more like a "Cock Ramming for Dummies" sort of thing.
Images: 8 Good, only two though, which could be improved upon. I know it's difficult because you don't want to give away the truth behind the words too soon, but illustrating things you need like lube and spectators could make it funnier.
Miscellaneous: 7.5 Average of the scores.
Final Score: 37.5 It is a good page for Uncyclopedia because of its type of misleading humor, and the fact that it makes the reader feel kind of foolish. Seriously, who wouldn't think dirty with the title you gave it? Besides the fact that it may not be the most original thing ever, I do think that it is great for this wiki, and defiantly ready for the mainspace. If you're looking to get it featured, it might be a little difficult, but you already have Frosty's support, and with some more work, it could be much yummier. Nice work, sir.
Reviewer: --Murder Frog Dull interest wanes. 22:35, December 22, 2012 (UTC)


Thanks --WarWalrus (talk) 14:25, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Personal tools