Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Gynecologist

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Gynecologist

-Maniac1075^{Complain Here} 15:54, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

I will do this review, but it's late at night so I'm going to reserved this for tomarrow and will review it as soon as possible. When I get to it, it'll be done around 12 hours or less.--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 05:25, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'm here now--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 15:59, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

50% done--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 03:12, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Almost done--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 04:09, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Humour:	5	I will split this into different sections ‘’’Intro’’’: There wasn’t one. Intros are necessary to an article as they do two things: 1) they open up the article and give a brief detail about it before leading to the main part of an article, and 2) they interest the reader and makes the reader want to read more. A good intro will attract viewers. A bad one or no intro will turn away viewers. So spend a minute or two or more to make a n intro. It doesn’t have to look fancy, just don’t make it crappy. ‘’’ A Gyno... Gyner... Guyna... Gino.... Cunt Doctor’’’: As soon as I saw the section, immediately I saw strike through words and arrows that points to the word. It makes the section look very messy, and if a reader saw that, they would be turned away instantly and would go somewhere else. So remove all that. Now for the actual content, it’s decent. However, there are two things that you should probably do to make it look better. 1) Come up with a better title, like “the History of Gynecology” or “The Founding of Gynecology”. 2) Try to expand the sentences more, go more into detail. I hope I made that clear enough. ‘’’It's a Cunt of a Job, But Someones Gotta Do it’’’: Same as before, except that you can keep the title, just remove the strike through and expand on the humor. ‘’’ A Typical Inspection Scenario’’’: Probably the most funniest thing I read so far. I don’t any change here, same goes for ‘’’Another Related Scenario’’’. Maybe putting another scenario but with it having the inspection go wrong. For example, “the bee is too stubborn to come out and the man must remove it with his mouth, and all of a sudden the lady feels something weird and as if he got the bee, to which he replies, “No, but I did get a cherry”” That’ really a sick thing to say (I didn’t make it up, it was a friend of mine who told me something like that) but something like that could work, just don’t overdo it or be too disgusting. ‘’’ Gynecology 101’’’: Clearly, the problem here is that it’s a list, and the thing about list, is that they are rarely funny. Instead, make this Into a paragraph. It’ll more humorous than it was as a list, and also expand the humor some more. ‘’’ Eulogy’’’:Fine as it is ‘’’Other Things’’’: The wiki link goes at the top of the page, and spread out the images and things at the bottom of the article as they are clump together and makes the article look messy.
Concept:	7	After reading this, I thought this was quite interesting. As a matter of fact, I never heard of a Gynecologist until today. Great concept. It works well. But, unfortunately you didn’t execute it very well. The article tends to be a combination of first person and third person tones. For something like this, you can make the article as if it was being told from the viewpoint of a professional Gynecologist, giving the history and life of being a Gynecologist. Or something like that. The fact that the problems that happen in a woman’s baby maker is caused by bee’s sounds really silly, but never less very comical. Although an actually Gynecologist would search for whatever the hell he is suppose to look for, I think bee’s will provide a more comical atmosphere even though it doesn’t make sense. Besides, when does Uncyclopedia ever make sense?
Prose and formatting:	6	You got a few spelling and grammar errors. Don’t be ashamed, it happens to us all at times. I see you got a proofreading template, so either put it there yourself, or someone read it and put it on because they knew it has a few mistakes. But if that takes a rather long time, you can go to the proofread page and lookup an active user (and when I mean active, I mean he comes here daily and doesn’t slack off) from the list and ask him/her to proofread your article. The next thing I like to point out is that you use a lot of strike through; the thing that does this. The thing about that is it rarely provides any humor and just makes the article look messy and unprofessional. And don’t use it to cross out the actually word and replace it with another, which is another thing I like to point out. This isn’t Elementary School. It’s Uncyclopedia, and you’re allowed to use those words without being fussed at (unless of course, you use them to be racist, sexist, or anything offensive). So if you’re going to use a word, just go ahead and fucking use it. But a better option, if you want that word to not be fully revealed, you can make the narrator say something like “A gyno, ermm I mean girl’s special area doctor”. I know, it’s a bad example, but it does give you an idea of what I’m talking about.
Images:	6	You got a few, and I’m very glad you didn’t put any actual images of women’s baby makers because you probably get in some serious trouble with the admins have you done that, as Uncyclopedia doesn’t allow that kind of thing here. Anyways, the pictures look great, but the captions need work. The first one, for example, I really do not know what you’re trying to say. Try to come up with a caption that someone can better understand the image. The second one’s fine as it is. The one that talks about Paris Hilton was a meh; instead, put something like “ The aftermath of a women who had some serious health issues” or something like that. The last one is ok, but instead of saying,”he is a podiatrist and is allergic to bees” it’ll be better to say something like, “he pretends to be one just so he can get rape you unexpectedly.” Bad example, but you get what I mean.
Miscellaneous:	7	My overall grade of this article.
Final Score:	31	Not a bad work, just needs a little work. A little spit and clean, along with the advice I gave you, would shape up this article in no time. If you have any questions/comments, just go to my talk page and I’ll be happy to answer them. Good Luck! Cheers!
Reviewer:	--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 05:03, June 22, 2010 (UTC)