Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Fuck Subtlety

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Fuck Subtlety

I don't know that I've ever put an article here. So this is maybe my first time. Please be gently. And subtle. Fuck that, rip this shit to shreds! Insult me and make me never want to return! Tell me that my writing is putrid and my comedy nonexistent! Be fucking blunt! Do it, fucker! Regardless of what you say, I'm just going to self-nom this shit when you're fucking done! So make me wait a week if you fucking want! What-the-fuck-ever!-- Imrealized ...hmm? 17:00, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Mine.--EpicAwesomeness (talk) 17:48, July 2, 2011 (UTC)

Humour:	7.89	The humour in this article fluctates from pleasantly brilliant to batshit insane but nevertheless funny. Basically, it goes from subtle to unsubtle. If that can be said about an article called "Fuck Subtlety", I would definetely think about applauding you. Still, the laughs here are more or less good. For the first half, they are indeed beautifully written and I would throw a knife at you if you attempted to tamper with them. Then, the second half works on two levels, the main individual joke level, which works OK to an extent but may need some toning down, and the kind of backup raft, the inevitable thought of "Heh heh. It's reeeeaaaalllyyy crazy", which, at least in my opinion, is funny enough.
Concept:	6.77	Well, the concept... depents on which one you mean. The initial concept ("Fuck Subtlety" itself) is awesomely amazing, but it's the second one, the one I'm supposed to write about, that troubles me a bit. Now don't get me wrong, it's good, and it's executed well, but it sounds a bit, well, shaky. Just the line "switch from orderly to incredibly unsubtle whilst describing what unsubtlety is like" doesn't sound 100% article worthy, especially the beginning, but then again the execution (ie the bus) soothes it. A lot. It really is one of those things which you can comment on but can't improve.
Prose and formatting:	8	I give you an 8 here, mainly because of the change. I previously said that the execution saves it, and the execution really is brilliant. It's like the narrator is having a mood swing. It's good. It's funny. And then there's the opening bit. 10/10. And the 'crazy' bit, which is nicely told because it sounds like a crazy drunk and good at once. Oh, and the formatting is pretty flawless too.
Images:	6.6	OK... three four images. The first one is a good image in itself, but it doesn't really make sense at the top in my opinion. Or, if I'm being retardedly ignorant, you can keep it there. The second image works - because it's a good image, because it's good placement, because it's a good caption - it's a team effort. The third and fourth are OK, but I'm still not sure about 4.
Miscellaneous:	7.5	Averaged using {{Pee}}, although I rounded the scores up.
Final Score:	36.76	Well, in conclusion, this is one of those articles that feels like it should belong on VFH but that I still wouldn't vote for. It also feels like one of those things where you can only change on or two small things or else the whole precision-built article structure is ruined. I like feeling things. In the end, it really is your choice over whether you'll heed what little advice I have given, ignore me and put this up on VFH or just tell me to STFU and put me down for a ban. Still, I hope I was "in-depth" enough.
Reviewer:	EpicAwesomeness (talk) 08:55, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

Fucking right it was in-depth enough. I still want you fucking banned for being so full of epic awesomeness, as your name implies. But fuck I am torn, cuz it is the fourth and all and fuck! This is no time for subtlety, right? Also, the first pic is a sort of mini-commentary on the article as a whole... soft-serve is generally a light, delicate treat but this time it's, you know, poo. I don't know, made sense to me at the time. I'll pretend it still does. Thanks for the fucking review! --Imrealized ...hmm? 04:39, July 4, 2011 (UTC)