Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/HowTo: Get into God's good books

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

HowTo: Get into God's good books

Hey, Personally I'm pleased with what I have so far, though if you feel the need to rip the shit out of it be my guest. What I'd actually like is some ideas for new headings/subjects because I don't think the article tells you enough ways to get into God's good books, which is what it's claiming to do. Thanks!Archie Wah Wah 00:04, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

I got this as well. 24-48 hous. To anybody who thinks I'm crazy to do two reviews at the same time, I agree, but I can do it. Besides. I like this one.--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 03:26, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, someone else can do it--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 12:19, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for that...!!! Anyone else? --Archie Wah Wah 01:49, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

I can give it a shot later tonight I suppose. I'm working on re-writing a rather long article at the moment, so it may take me 24 hours. --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 20:55 EST 13 Feb, 2010

¡Hola! This valiant VMI cadet is here to guard this article while it is reviewed by: -- Sf13 If he hasn't reviewed it within 24 hours since 20:55 EST 13 Feb, remove this tag and shout at him.

Humour:	8	The way I review, I generally put the majority of my comments and suggestions in the humor section. This allows me to be lazy keep all of my thoughts organized. I'll give you my first impressions after one read through and then go in section by section for a more detailed look. Initial Impressions This was actually quite funny to read, and that is coming from a Christian. Like you mentioned above, it is considerably missing from the "how to get good with God" bit. It also seems like the underlying message of your howto is that Actually trying to please God by doing the right thing is usless since God is a deviant, therefore you must do devious things to get in good with God. An initial suggestion I have for expanding the getting in God good book section is to have examples of actions you can attempt to do but will ultimately probably not work. Also more examples of being devious in order to please God would be funny. Righty-o, on the deeper analysis! Section by Section Introduction I feel that you reveal too much of the premise of the article in your introduction. Telling the reader to skip most of your funny material is never really a good idea either. I think you also need to retool the beginning too. I feel it would be funnier if God really did have a book full of "good" people, but that God arbitrarily picks who gets into it, kind of like how Bungie randomly picks who gets the recon armor in Halo 3 Xbox Live. Don't reveal this right out in the introduction though, save it for the later section, make it a big shocking surprise that it's almost impossible to get in there without cheating (which paradoxically makes God like you since he's a deviant). That, to me, would be pretty funny. The bit about the pseudonyms is pretty funny, but I would get rid of the "Oh by the way" bit, that line is usually for one-liners, not whole sections. just a suggestion. I would basically re-do the introduction in a way that doesn't give away your twist immediately. Make it evident that God does indeed have a book filled with the names of "good" people going to heaven, but that it is difficult to get in there, thus this howto guide. Anything along those lines would make for a better introduction imo. How to get Into God's Bad Books Example 1 This is a good section to start the article off with, it keeps the reader from discovering your 'twist' right away. Plus it's funny, which is always a good thing. Possibly you may want to consider remaking the title into something like "How NOT to get into God's good books." Let me just say you have some great material here and that the following is merely constructive criticism. The bits where you skip sections of the 'scripture', for example: "yada yada, skip skip, skee bap boo badoo bo I'm a skatman blah blah" is excesively silly and not exceptionally funny. by exceptional, I mean not at all. Simply putting ... or ...... would suffice. To avoid saying this over and over, assume that I am referring to every instance of this in your article. I love how your 'scriptural text' is in faux middle English but the spoken parts are in modern slang, it creates a pretty funny effect. however, there are a few instances where you take it too far and it becomes more silly than funny. For example, "off-o that-a tree." This needs to be redone, it just reads more stupid than funny. "Righty-o I'm off for a nap." would be better as "Right then, I'm..." or something to that effect. The impression I get in your article is that you are casting God as a deviant, but not as a fruitcake. Therefore, I think it's best to avoid dialogue that portrays him differently than you do in the majority of the article. "What up, Dawg?" simply substitute this for "What's up." it will read better. "'Thou hast betrayest me by eating mine favouritest fruit!' Whinged God." This seems to break the mold of your article and the character of God within your fiction. For instance, I feel this is one of the only times a character speaks in middle english. Also, 'whinged' doesn't seem to be an appropriate word here. I don't feel like you are trying to portray God throughout as immature, so I would substitute that with something else, like 'exclaimed' and so forth. "'Silence!' Cried God. 'Also I want you to get out of my garden. As Divine Landlord I don't even need to give you any notice.' Yay so it was that Adam and Eve went to live in the Land of Nod. And God kicked about in the dust and chuckled to himself." This bit made me laugh pretty good, especially the last bit. Example 2 This is actually your funniest section in my opinion. I feel having God take a giant poo for hundreds of years is just a tad bit too silly. I would make a different, more high-brow joke about God's apparent absence from Earth.I don't know if this was intentional or not, but your link to 'south east asia' goes to Burma, which has no tall buildings and is quite backwards. The country you're thinking of is Malaysia. Also, you have God cussing in this section and being generally more vindictive than deviant if that makes any sense. I guess what I'm saying is that God has all the sudden sprouted a wonderful joy at killing all these people (which he didn't do at this point of the Torah anyhow). I would soften God's actions out, just a little. still have him destroy the tower and such, but he shouldn't be smiting people at this point. He shouldn't necessarily be cussing either if he hasn't been up to this point. just general observations. This is a good section. Example 3? An idea for a potential example 3 would be Sodom and Gomorrah. I think there could be a lot of potential for satire here in the vein of your article. Moral This section is good to go on content, but I think it needs a more descriptive or creative title. Sinning Originally This section is gold, playing on the words in the term to create a whole new meaning is clever. I think you need to include somewhere in here that God still hates their sins, just that he is entertained when they find new and creative ways to piss him off. Having God still have a distinction between right and wrong creates the set-up for the need to still get in God's 'good books'. This section needs to be under a new == heading for 'Getting in God's Good Books' and should include the bit about re-writing the Bible. The list is great, and so is the addendum. You need to tie this section further into 'Getting into the Good Books' by making clear that God still hates your sin, but if he judges your sin to be clever or of highly original quality, he'll add you to the book arbitrarily as a reward for amusing him. You also need to make a joke, I feel, about people trying to sin originally, failing, and ending up in hell because of it. I think that would be pretty funny. Rewriting the Bible I think this is fairly clever, but it shouldn't be the main focus of how to get into God's good books. It should simply be one method of amusing God since there's no way to be 'good enough' on your own merit. Make clear that this method makes God laugh at how easy it is to manipulate history or something along those lines. Come up with some angle for this that God would find to be hilarious enough to let these folks in. One example that comes to mind are the new translations with less harsh language or blatant revisions in regards to issues with women in the Bible. God hates women, could be one of your contentions, and any translation that says otherwise makes God laugh. Also writing yourself into the old testament stories should make God laugh too. Final Humor Comments I think there could be a good theme throughout this article that if you try too hard to get in, i.e. you live a virtuous life, you tend to fail to get into the Good Books, and that if you do something incredibly creative or hilarious when you screw up or fuck with people, you get in as sort of an arbitrary award for making God laugh. This I feel is the concept your running on, and it works from a humor angle, although you're probably going to hell for it lol work off of that concept and edit and expand this article around that and you have a pretty good article. Solid effort so far imo.
Concept:	8.5	I like what you've done here, and like I've said before, the angle you've taken with this so far has been fairly creative. I'm not too huge a fan of you focusing so much on rewriting the Bible as the only way to get into God's Good Books, but I think you're on the right track so far. Just follow what I put down in the final humor comments and you should be good to go. I'll be sure to give you a master bulleted list in the final comments section on the basic steps you should take to improve the article. good original take on the concept of achieving eternal life and salvation.
Prose and formatting:	7	There are a few formatting issues and few grammar mistakes, but for the most part you keep the tone of the article consistent. I would probably not break the 4th wall in this article, doing so really doesn;t add anything and imo detracts from the concept. here are a few issues that stood out to me while reading (this isn't the end all though, I would go through and proofread this again yourself to find the stuff that I can't recall specifically): I just noticed, but you've wrapped the whole Genesis 1:1 bit in '. I don't think this is necessary, in fact I was confused when I saw a lonely little ' at the end of the section and thought it was a grammar error. I would just remove those. "And the tower of Babel was destructed and the peoples scattered to the multitudinous edges of the earth. " 'Destructed' should probably be destroyed. I think this would read smoother that way. You have way too much extraneous bold text in the rewriting the Bible section. It kind of distracts and hurts the eyes when reading. use bold sparingly. I wasn't too enamored with the heading "Bible Game" I would change that to something else. No particular suggestions come to mind, but you're the author so I'll leave the decision entirely to you whether to keep it or not. Your "see also" section needs to make use of bullets, like you do in the list of sins.
Images:	6.75	I wasn't sure whether to included these comments under the prose or images section, but I figured they would be better here. Your image of adam and eve is a good image, but it is entirely too big. I went in and experimented with the size of your image (relax, I didn't make any changes. yet. muhahahaha!), and I think somewhere between 300-400 pixels in width ought to do it. if you aren't sure how to include this in the images code, go into the edit, create a new section in the image code with the shift+\ option and add 300px or whatever number you want. you can also view the source code in another article, copy that, add it to your article and make the appropriate changes. I feel as though the do not anger God image should go under the Moral section. The caption for the tower of babel image probably needs to be redone. link it to Godzilla or the Japanese or something for a less obvious cultural reference. Jesus reminds me of Godzilla in that picture I guess lol. Your picture under the list of sins needs to be much bigger. See comments above if you don't know how to resize the image. The bible image at the bottom works, but is kind of bland. the 6.75 comes from overall above average images and average captions with the need for resizing and recaptioning in places. You have roughly the right amount of images for the length of this article.
Miscellaneous:	7	Enjoyable article, and I'm sure you know since you acknowledged it before this review started, but it needs some expansion and editing in the existing text. The score is my overall enjoyment while reading the article.
Final Score:	37.25	okay, here's my step by step for improving this (in no particular order of importance): Make a == section for Getting into God's Good Books under which you include sinning originally, rewriting the Bible, and possible future additions. resize the first image (smaller) and resize the sinning originally image (bigger). fix the prose and grammar issues mentioned and proofread. look for expansion! hopefully I've given you enough ideas to come up with more material, if not, shout at me and ask for more. Overall a good effort! funny too! If you have questions or comments, please hit me up at my talk page!
Reviewer:	--Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 15:31 EST 14 Feb, 2010 If you found this review to be helpful, I would love your vote for reviewer of the month, just follow the link!

Cheers

Thanks for this! Some good/interesting points, and its certainly given me some thoughts. Gonna be busy with work, so if I don't change the article immediately be patient! It will happen. --Archie Wah Wah 22:04, February 14, 2010 (UTC)