Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Who created god?

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Who created god?

AeroZephyr 01:10, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

I got this one... 24 hours.                               Puppy's talk page00:40, June 5, 2009 Wednesday, 04:22, Mar 10 2010 UTC

Humour: 4 So, given that I'm stuck in a car park at the moment, meaning that I don't have access to a decent computer, I think it is the relevant time for me to do a fair and impartial review of this article.

So firstly we'll look at humour. Now I have read through this article a couple of times and as of yet have fallen short of finding a chuckle in here.

Marilyn Manson, Chuck Norris, Richard Dawkins are all subjects that are ripe for parody. The problem is they have no place in this article as it stands, so instead they look like tired old memes that are dragged out to add humour by regurgitating a stale joke. Much the same as Captain Obvious.

Now this means that the humour here is both stale and regurgitated. Both of which are most unnattractive adjectives.

This doesn't mean there is no promise with the article. What it does mean is that a good piece of satire usually involves two main ingredients - inspiration and perspiration. HTBFANJS suggests that you spend time writing and rewriting articles. This reads like a hastily thrown together piece of cruft, which all the humour hinges on one major element, the image.

Edit: In order to overcome this the best thing that you can do is try and find something new to bring into the equation at the same time you are removing from the article. The best way that I can see to do this is to try and start thinking somewhat differently about this. My usual method is to try and think of things from the perspective of a child.

Okay, the child says There is a God, but I don't know where it came from and so starts to try and find things that are recognisable and matching the pattern.

So the child then thinks Where do people come from and finds out that children are born from their mothers. The child then tries to determine who God's mother is, only to find out that nothing was before God.

So coming back to the fractal nature, God created God, and people are born, so God gave birth to God. But then God senior had to come from somewhere, which was God senior senior, and so forth.

Concept: 6 There is some merit to the concept. The idea that we live in a cause and effect universe with finite time suggests that there is no such thing as infinite or the possibility of existence without a source. This then suggests that god needs to come from somewhere, but where.

Have a read through Creationism to get an idea of a way of taking a concept relating to an "intelligent" perspective on God and making it funny.

Edit: See the additions that I made on the humour area, as they also relate here. I'd probably suggest that there be a bit of other philosophies brought in here as well. After all, you've mentioned alternate theories, but you have just said they're not true. Some "logic" similar to what has been used in Creationism and Intelligent Mathematics would work well in this.

Prose and formatting: 4 Spelling and grammar issues galore, and ICU tag suggests some work on formatting is required.

Edit: I'd suggest working firstly on the concept and the humour to begin with, and then come back to this later. Running your page through a spell check is worthwhile. I often use Firefox when editing as it picks up a lot of my spelling mistakes.

The main thing I would suggest though is reading it aloud to make sure it works. Also I'd put this through to UN:PROOF once you have this to a point where you are happy with the humour and concept. (I'm a terrible proof-reader personally, so I'm more then happy for someone who is more anal about it checking my work.)

Images: 4 Okay, I hate the image. It's badly photoshopped and doesn't really give any cause for chuckles. It is a good source image, but nothing beyond that.

Edit: Okay, I'm pretending I didn't see the new image, but if I did I'd say it was much better. I'd also look at getting the ratio of text/images a little more balanced. If I have to hit page down or page up while I'm reviewing it and I don't see an image in any of the views that I'm looking at then I need to add more.

Creationism is good example of the right balance of images to text. There were a lot of images that were potentially going to be used for this article, and many of them have since been discarded. There are also a few unused images here that you could potentially steal for your article. I especially like Godlego.jpg

Miscellaneous: 6 Okay, I'm a harsh critic, I know, but the title alone is a promise of a funny article, and this just isn't at the moment. It needs TLC, and a lot of it. I can see a kernel of promise in it, but it does need work.

Edit: Again, pretending that the changes that you have made haven't been made, however I'm really happy to see what you have been doing so far. I still believe that there is a lot of potential in this idea.

If you need anything else, then feel free to nag me here.

Final Score: 24 As above
Reviewer:                               Puppy's talk page00:40, June 5, 2009 Wednesday, 09:39, Mar 10 2010 UTC
Personal tools