Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/allahu akbar

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 17:01, February 18, 2008 by Under user (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit allahu akbar

I'm trying to make an artical about Allahu Akbar, but some other users are not impressed. I need somebody to contribute extra content. Please?

Some people come to this site just to get what they can, and give nothing in return. Others do the right thing and give back to the online community. They spend just a little of their own time to help the needy articles of the world. Do the right thing! Do it for the children.

68.164.93.153 08:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

UUtea A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article
is being reviewed by:
UU - natter UU Manhole
(While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead).
(Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole).

OK, I'll have a go. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 16:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Brace yourself, this may not be pretty.

Humour: 3 Oh man, I wish I hadn't picked this one up now. Religion is such a tricky topic to get right. Sorry to say it, but to me this just isn't funny. Amongst other things, the idea of uttering a mating call shortly before "turning to smoke" doesn't really work. It comes across as basically an article likening Muslims to chimpanzees, which is less clever, and more stupid.
Concept: 2 You don't really have much of one, for me. Honestly, unless I missed something very deep and subtle, this has little to recommend it. You're essentially likening Muslims to mating Chimpanzees, yes? Subtle. If you feel I have missed something, please let me know and I'll happily look again and reassess the review if required.
Prose and formatting: 5 It's short. It has the feeling of a list about it. The wikiformatting is competent, the spelling is OK. Meh.
Images: 0 None (the ones in the templates don't count).
Miscellaneous: 2.3 Averaged.
Final Score: 12.3 Right, unless I'm missing something, and I don't think I am, this is quite a crude bit of work. We see similar things crop up on VFD on a daily basis. I'm not a religious type getting upset over it, I'm not that bothered about whether some people might consider it offensive (we have worse) I'm just concerned with funny, and although I hate saying this, I didn't find this funny at all.
Reviewer: --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Comments:

I always add something here. This time it's as follows:

My honest advice on reading this is "try again with something else". Whip off the review tag, let it go, start elsewhere with something new and see how that goes. Have a look at HTBFANJS and BGBU and go from there.

The reason I'm a trifle hesitant here is that the IP who raised this review request seemed polite and friendly, going by the talk page conversation, and I want to think that this has more to it than I've seen. But now I've committed myself to the review, all I can do is review it as I see it. Still, as I always say, this is only my opinion, others are available. And good luck! --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal tools
projects