Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/People Who Like to Fuck Naked (twice)
People Who Like to Fuck Naked [edit source]
If comes a day that I reach 40 features, this would be ideal to cross the mile-marker on. I guess the page is my "A Wizard did it" or that one by Thekillerfroggy. People voted it down twice, unfairly of course, and it met its demise like a rabid dog in heat fucking a wolverine on a trampoline in the middle of a busy highway. So please, in-depth, by the very best of reviewers working in teams of three, tell me what it is that people dislike about said masterpiece. The section with all the links, that is like a handy reference guide for sexual matters of the heart, and serves the core purpose of the page. Thanks, and may you fuck naked twice this eve. Aleister 19:08 18-3-'11
- This is going to be a really hard one (steady now), but I'll get it. --Black Flamingo 21:47, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
| Humour: | 7.5 | Aloha my old friend, how are things? Ok, so this has been a pretty difficult article to review, but I've tried my best and hopefully it will help you. As far as humour goes you've done a pretty good job (it's been a long time since I first read this, but it seems a lot better than I recall). The writing itself generally has very few issues, but at the beginning and the end there are a few weak points I should like to talk about.
First off; templates. I'm not really a fan of templates anyway, I find them extraneous, ugly and clichéd. I realise the NSFW one and the TV14 are there for a reason, but to be honest the opening paragraph more than prepares the reader for what is to come, and it does it in a much more original and humorous way. This leaves the templates a bit redundant, and also at odds with the excellent visuals the envelope thing causes. I would simply get rid of them. I also can't help but think that you need another way to split the opening warning from the article-proper. It starts so suddenly after the warning, the two sections don't feel fully integrated. Perhaps another big image between them, maybe of the envelope having been opened by the curious reader? Or maybe just another sentence that introduces it? Now let's skip all the way to the end. There are a few problems here, in my opinion, although a lot of them are nitpicky. The concept, which so far has flowed wonderfully throughout the article, seems to get a bit lost around here. The whole idea of having to find a prostitute seems a bit strange given how socially unacceptable it all is, especially when you say it's essentially police-sponsored. I prefer the idea of a secret society like the Men in Black, people who meet in the backrooms of private clubs, and your chances of actually meeting one is remote. The whole prostitute joke seems weak and forced. I like the hopelessness of it all, so this might be something to play up to. Perhaps instead of having prostitutes, the narrator could end by leaving a cryptic clue as to where to meet for some clothe-less fun? Another instance where it seems a tad confused is the Look the Other Way section. It begins as a warning which sympathises with the people who liked to fuck naked (worrying about their safety should the reader reveal their true identities), but by the end seems to turn into another "warning" that demonises it (suggesting the reader attend therapy). I like this part about seeking professional help, but it doesn't make sense that it's down here, as by your own admission the people who don't fuck naked have allegedly stopped reading. The rest of it is probably trimmable, as it's really just a rehash of things you've said before, and doesn't really fit in with the approach of the article. |
| Concept: | 10 | No problems with the concept really, not in my opinion anyway. I like how you start off with this very suspicious description of the fetish (which is ironic in itself), then after the "boring" part is over, the narrator reveals that he himself is among those ostracised for practising naked sex. It's only really the execution that lets it down, mostly the clumsy way you start and finish the article. Hopefully my comments above will help with this, if not then I guess we're both fucked. |
| Prose and formatting: | 6.5 | Overall the prose is pretty perfect, so again I won't bother talking about that. You could probably do something about the formatting though, as it does look really scruffy in places. I think the major contributor to this is the way you embolden all the wiki links. I'm guessing you're doing this to compensate for the slightly different shade of blue the wiki links have? It especially looks scruffy when you link the two different words to separate articles. I find setting them out like external links stops this discolouration, the only problem is you've got to enter the whole address like this - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon mastodon] - but in my opinion, it's worth it to keep the links consistent and tidy. It should make them look just like internal Uncyc links (at least on my computer screen). |
| Images: | 5 | I personally think the images are letting this one down, and are probably your weakest point. If I had to hazard a guess as to what was holding this back from FA - I would definitely say it's the images, they're the only thing about the article that isn't really good.
The first one of the naked woman and the bizarre alien/muppet/thing is one of the few good'uns. I like how creepy it is, and although I don't really see what it has to do with the subject matter, it's a pretty funny picture. The Clara Bow one is fine too, although I think an ordinary photograph of her might be better than the book cover thing you've got here. Then we get to a moving image, or .gif file. I've probably mentioned before that I don't really like these, but I'll try to leave personal feelings aside. One problem I have with them is that I find it hard to focus on text when there's an annoying, constantly-looped, flashing image in the corner of the screen. It distracts me too much. Does no one else have that problem? This one in particular stands out because it seems amateurish, not at all in line with the text around it, which is clever, subtle and professional-sounding. I don't think a cheap gif of a dog shagging a toy really fits in with that. It's not even pleasing visually, not like a well-taken photograph is. It's your call obviously mate, but you never know, it could be little things like this that are holding it back on VFH. I know it would definitely make me reconsider a vote in favour. I have identical feelings for the stick figure one, although with that one I don't really like the caption either. It's too silly, and its contrivance is very obvious - like you're desperately trying to justify the gif. Definitely get rid of the last two images, Al, seriously. The "fuck yeah" thing isn't at all funny, and it nearly gave me an epileptic fit (and that was just trying to read the prose above it, not read the image itself). The caption's only point seems to be to direct readers to another article of yours, rather than really making any humorous headway of its own. Same with the googly eyes woman, I'm sick of that image and I don't really see what it has to do with the subject matter, other than that she's naked. Now, telling you to get rid of all those pics wouldn't be very helpful if I didn't make other suggestions. It would be nice to see some more serious images of these people who like to fuck naked (save for the first one you don't really do this, unless you count Clara Bow, I guess). Or something that illustrates the various things you talk about; pornographic pottery and cave-paintings. Spend some time on Google images and see if you can find anything like this, or pop over to image request to see if they can knock anything up for you. Even better would be if there were some kind of consistent theme to your illustrations; perhaps a bunch of images that have been humorously censored? I don't know, that's probably a crap idea, but hopefully it sparks something in your head and you can go somewhere else (somewhere better) with it. I just think you need a higher class of image than "LOL, it's two skeletons fucking!!" - because the prose itself is so classy. Everyone has different priorities when they pick images, but for me, the first thing I look for is photographic quality; visual aestheticism. This may be something to consider yourself. |
| Miscellaneous: | 7 | The amount of times I have fucked naked (including in my dreams). |
| Final Score: | 36 | Overall this is a good piece, and even though it may be taking a while, it still seems to be coming along nicely. I wouldn't worry so much about getting it featured Al, it is definitely going to be featured one day, you've just got to be patient. It took me a year and a half to get Alice in Sunderland into featureable quality, and that article even predates my account. Why does it matter so much anyway? Just because it's not featured it doesn't mean the article is any worse than any other on here. Anyway, I'm rambling about stuff that I'm sure you already know. So, my main advice is to clean up the beginning and end - which don't have the cohesiveness of the middle section, and also clean up some of the links. Finally, have a look for some more images, and if you can bear to lose a few of the weaker ones in here, then that should clear up some room for them. I can't wait to see where you go with this next. If there's anything I've said here that you want me to explain better, or if you want my opinion on anything I might have missed, please let me know on my talk page and I'll try to help. I hope the review is ok. |
| Reviewer: | --Black Flamingo 02:01, March 19, 2011 (UTC) | |