Talk:Answers in Genesis
From Pee Review
Please note that this is not a page for Christians who lack a sense of humour; in other words, this is not an article for Christians. I think that the ridiculous AiG ministry is in desperate need of being torn to shreds by the world's most powerful cross cut shredder powered by Superman. I'll go one better and do it myself. --220.127.116.11 16:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
|Humour:||5||The occasional good gag, but far too earnest. This has been a problem I've noticed with a lot of the Uncyclopedia articles against religious nutjobs; they seem too intent on refuting their targets, at the cost of making fun of them.|
|Concept:||5||Could be worse. The idea that the AIG website is a parody is a little cheap though; essentially it frees you from the burden of parodying them yourself. It might make an okay tongue in cheek blog entry, but it doesn't quite carry an whole Uncyclopedia article.|
|Prose and formatting:||8||The prose is readable, well formatted and I don't see any glaring errors.|
|Images:||5||The images are appropriate, but not that funny. The captions add little.|
|Miscellaneous:||5||I found a number of things jarring about this article. Frankly, I don't see how you can call people 'brain dead riff raff' in the same article that you're complaining about ad homenims. Also, you rightly note that many Christians find the biblical literalist crowd an embarrassment, while the bulk of your article makes the simplistic "Christians=creationists, atheists=evolutionists" claim so beloved of the Creationists themselves.
Normally, I wouldn't even notice issues like this, or care about them if I did. However the too-earnest tone of this article made them stick out.
|Final Score:||28||What you haven't done here is written good satire. You've written a serious essay, and glued some jokes on. I know we love the whole uber-rational bit, but if you want to write comedy, you've got to put that aside for a while.|
|Reviewer:||--Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 04:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)|