Talk:Regent University

From Pee Review

Been working on this one sporadically for a while whenever I get ideas for what to add on, but for the moment I've run dry. Review me, I need some inspiration.

T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 20:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bump D: -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 00:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Oh! I'll take it! Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 17:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Handle this one carefully, it's stirred up some controversy in its time. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 19:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So, I think I might get to actually reviewing this now. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 21:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Handle this one carefully, it's stirred up some distractions in its time. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 21:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

*cough* Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 23:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

/me minimizes IRC, stares at article. I will do this! Distractions, begone! Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Handle this one carefully, it's stirred up very few actual reviews in its time. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

FINISHED

Humour:	9	The humor in here is fantastic. You've used subtlety to great effect, and the jokes are clear and refined enough to show that much effort has been put into them. This is one of the few reviews where the article is far enough along for me to look at specific jokes, so I'll focus on a few points that bugged me. The first you probably really don't want to hear, but there is a minor (note, very minor) excess of anger here. The article focuses on the hypocrisy of the institution, so hostility would not be out of place (it's expected, actually), but some parts of this article aren't so much jokes as they are criticisms. These are far and few between, most notably how you linked "coeducational interdenominational Christian", but they're still noticeable. For the specific example I used, while the linking of sexist and racist may be ironic, they seem more hostile than good-natured. Nazi just seems completely out of place in the context of the article. However, as stated before the hostile sections are rare, and the only part that was "overly hostile" I pointed out above. The rest of the article is good-humored fun, and I enjoyed reading it. Actually, that's the only specific example I can find to talk about. On to concept!
Concept:	7	Unfortunately I can't give you many points in this category because this article isn't one of those that's based on concept but rather on a real-life institution. However, your approach to the article was interesting as most articles have trouble presenting a(n almost) completely objective point of view to mimic an actual encyclopedia entry. Even though the site is a parody of Wikipedia, most articles rely on the voice of the author and the personality of his persona rather than the subject content itself. Because you pulled this off, I've scored you higher than I otherwise would have for keeping with the spirit of the site so well and doing it so expertly.
Prose and formatting:	10	Just as it was for the last article of yours that I reviewed, your grammar and spelling are near perfect. The only mistake that I could find was probably an overlook while changing part of the article. You end the second paragraph under the second header with "What is this horrendous, misshapen world where fifteen year olds can be impregnated on accident, only to depregnate themselves with wire hangers and other implements of destruction?" and then begin the third with God let out a long, healthy guffaw and smiled at his Son. "Why, dear Patty, so you can clean it up!". I imagine the question in the second paragraph originally started with "Why", but in any case that's the only slip up in sight.
Images:	7	This is kind of a mixed bag for me. I do enjoy the images, and the first two are used brilliantly, but in the bottom portion of the article the only pictures present are portraits. While the captions are still well done and the pictures fit the parts of the article they correspond with, it's rather unnerving to have face after face staring you down, daring you to blink. Also, because they're all aligned to the right, it seems like they're ganging up on me, watching me, waiting for me to crack, wanting my soul.
Miscellaneous:	5	Scorecheat! The one and only reason that this score is so low is that the article is clearly not finished. In fact, since it seems to be about half-done, I give it half the Misc. score I would otherwise have bestowed upon it had it been done. That's right, because you have an unfinished article, you lost a full fucking 5 points. You could have had a perfect 10! But nooooooooo, not for TKF, he's gonna submit a half-finished article! Well, this'll show you ya cocky bastard! Oh yea!
Final Score:	38	Anyway, I think this article is already at a feature-worthy level. If it were finished, it could be put up on VFH right now! I hope you resubmit this for review after it's complete, I'd like to glance over the finished product sometime (but not review it, of course). Good luck with the rest of the article, I'm completely confident that you can make this into an easy feature. Cheerio!
Reviewer:	Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 03:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

From Pee

Humour:	5	There are some undeniably funny jokes in here. Linking "HowTo:Win an Argument/Lawsuit with an Atheist" to "Incompleteness Theorem" is genius. "The Book of Romans: Is it Really Necessary?" is hilarious, considering how ridiculous such a class would be in an Evangelical college. Describing Hell as "other extensive distance afterlife programs" is pretty great, too. The problem is that there's so much anger in this article. I mean, look at its underlying messages. In this order, I see: Christian preachers want to have sex with underage girls (Christians think) God hates gay people Conservative Christians make their children miserable and drive them to suicide Conservative Christians inflict agonizing pain on bad students Christians cannot tolerate free speech and must repress it wherever possible Christians hate black people Christians are litigious Christians think atheists practice bestiality Christians assault and rape Blacks Christians assault and rape Latinos Christians assault and rape gays, and celebrate with pizza. That's a lot of anger. Actually, that feels like hate. It's hard to laugh at hate. I enjoy taking the piss out of religious conservatives as much as the next guy, but this article - man, this is vicious. It's like talking to a drunk guy who's pissed off at his ex-wife: that can be the subject of some great stand-up comedy, but if he goes dark and starts talking about how he wants to stab the bitch in the throat, the laughs stop and people start backing toward the door.
Concept:	5	Regent University is crying out for satire - if anything, it's too easy - but there needs to be a clearer concept, something beyond "I fucking hate Regent University." Because that's what's coming through in this article.
Prose and formatting:	10	The prose in this article is really quite exceptional. The jokes are really phrased very well: I see the rule of threes in there a lot (e.g., "a student body of five hundred undergraduates, seventy graduates, and two billion eternal souls"), and the drops out of encyclopedic tone are done tastefully and in ways that enhance the humor. This is good writing.
Images:	7	Adequate. The pictures pretty up the article, but they don't add much. I personally am not a fan of smashing a bunch of 100-pixel pictures against the right margin, but other reviewers will sometimes give you grief for not doing that. The captions were fine, but not really laugh-out-loud funny. I suspect I might have laughed at the Francis Winkler one if I had understood the joke.
Miscellaneous:	6.75	Averaged
Final Score:	33.75	You know, I don't have a lot of respect for Robertson and his ilk... really, I don't have any respect at all for them... and yet, I'd far rather see them roasted in a respectful way than in one where the underlying message is "these people are SCUM!" Because - at least to me - good humor is light-hearted; when it ceases to be light-hearted, it becomes political commentary and not humor. And while I appreciate political commentary, I find myself getting pretty annoyed when I unwrap a present that says "joke" and I get commentary instead.
Reviewer:	Hyperbole 06:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)