Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/HowTo:Sexually Stimulate an Ant
HowTo:Sexually Stimulate an Ant[edit source]
It's gone over a lot of stuff since it was last reviewed by Heerenveen. It's kinda gross, though. Gross in a fun way, not in an ED way. Thanks for the review! My preference would be for someone to tell me how funny each section is instead of just grading it as a whole. • <May 10, 2008 [3:15]>
Maybe Orian got lost in the stars, so Cajek asked me to look this one over... MrN 
15:52, May 15
| Humour: | 7.5 | I remember the first time I read this... When I added that Adam Ant pic... [1]. The start read...
"Being an ant keeper is tough: nobody knows what your job is[1], and the market for "ant honey" is less than lackluster. The main objective as an ant keeper is to find ways to keep your colony going and growing. There is nothing more rewarding than watching your little friends get it on like some kind of sick, giant, self-aware being that controls their existence." For me, that's a lot more funny than what you have there now. I don't want to say you have edited this too much, but. Well, OK... I just thought it was more funny before. You have removed some of the rough edges, but generally, I'm not sure you have added much new here, and I think with all your editing you may have forgotten why you thought it was funny to start with... This might be something which you have been doing a little generally, perhaps in some of your other articles also. I know you are getting a bit bored with Uncyc at the moment, so I just want to encourage ya to try to avoid doing this. I love most of what you write dude, and I think it's important to keep the essence of your writing style together. Cajek is controlled random. No one does it better than you, and this start just looks like, well... It's had some dick like me pissing all over it. Oh, I am pissing all over it? Anyway. You get the idea. When you look back at something you have written before, think twice before changing it. Maybe you could improve the above a bit, but in the latest version you have lost the essence of the humour. The concept is still there, but it's been watered down and MrNed (that's an insult btw) to such an extent, that it's just not really funny now. Careful, you don't want to turn into me! I think you did this a bit with Why take your fish to work also... I actually liked some of the early versions a lot more than the one which got featured. When I nominated, I seriously considered reverting back about 10 or 15 revisions before I did... "In fact, if, after a while of watching, you too start getting the urge to merge, try to not mate with the queen herself. It would put the colony itself in jeapordy." = Not funny. I also thought that in the older version: "As a Christian, I feel like I should warn you: before your ants have sex, make sure that they're married. It reduces the dignity of these 6-legged-dirt-eaters if they could just have sex whenever they want. Make sure that you have a ceremony with a registered minister for each pair you plan to mate." Was probably better than what you have now. The extra bits, especially "DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying that just because they're married they won't necessarily go to hell for having sex, I'm just saying that it's a good idea for them to get married. God didn't create ants to watch them have kinky sex all the time, for God's sakes! Ants are freaking gross close up!" is just pants. Before it was funny. You had told the joke, and that was that. Now, it's got all this other stuff added to the section, for no new funny... Here is the difference between the two versions. [2]. I would be interested to see if you agree with me on this point, maybe I'm off the mark... Anyway, I'm going to stop going on about the old version now, you get what I'm saying I'm sure... OK... The Original Jesus quote is pants. Loose it, or get a better one. I like the "They probably change sex at will or something immoral like that." line. Awesome, great style. An Ant's Sexual Adventure: Pants. Loose it. |
| Concept: | 8.5 | Hmm, I'm sure I read something a bit like this before. Oh, someone wrote something about Terminators or something I think. It's obvious reading this, that your sharing some of your ideas between the two articles. Not that it's a problem I guess. Anyway, what are you supposed to write in this dam concept section again? Oh, that's it. How funny can this be? Well, I look at the guidelines which some assholes wrote, and it says the concept score relates to how funny the article could be given the skills of the author. Well, I know you can make this a lot more funny if you strip out a lot of the rubbish, and stick to the ideas which make this funny. You know what they are, just take another look through and remove the padding. This can be more funny which is why you get 8.5 even though it does not really deserve it now. |
| Prose and formatting: | 7.5 | I did not find some of the hidden text which you have to revel worth the bother. Some of the lines are rather lame, Uncyc in-jokes, or just generally pants. It also makes the article look really ugly. I would not mind if they were funny enough, but na. I would probably get rid of most of them. Did I miss the point here? I would keep "CENSORED!! OH DEAR LORD, CENSORED!!" and "AAAHHH I HATE YOU, YOU DAMN ARTICLE!!!", but loose the some of the rest. I like the stuff to do with the "fluid is completely green!", so I guess you need that, but I think you have gone over the top on the hidden text.
I like the use of footnotes. I can see a new style developing here. I really like where you are going with this encyclopaedic style, but with the person not really knowing what they are talking about. Tis cool. I think there should be more encyclopaedic style articles on Uncyc than all this other stuff, but that's just me I guess... |
| Images: | 7 | Here's a new image scale... The AOP scale... :-)
Awesome: "That's actually a bee, but it's no skin off my proboscis.". OK: First, the male It's not funny when you first read it. The caption appears random and pants. When you have read the article, the caption makes sense, but who goes back an reads articles again? Adam Ant Where did you get this pic from? It's rubbish. HeHe. I will go and put another caption on in a min or two... You dam Americans have no idea about early 80's British pop culture! Pants: "You sick sons of bitches! Eh? WTF? AAAAAHHHHH! AAAAAAAAAHHHHHH Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!! Why? |
| Miscellaneous: | 7.6 | Sausages egg and chips please vicar. {{Pee|7.5|8.5|7.5|7}} |
| Final Score: | 38.1 | Strip out the extra shit which does not add to the humour. You need another pic or two, and a decent quote at the top. I will try to toss a few edits in later tonight, and I find this less effort than trying to make too many suggestions. Don't compromise your writing style. The Cajek formula is generally pretty dam awesome, and in this article (in places) you wander away from that. Obviously it's fine to do that sometimes, but be consistent if you do. In places this looks like I wrote it, and in places, it looks like you wrote it. Short and funny is better than long and fat, unless your talking about your proboscis of course... |
| Reviewer: | MrN 17:20, May 15
| |