Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/People who are totally all like "we're the best" but their aLL gay and stuff and stupid s i hate them

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

People who are totally all like "we're the best" but their aLL gay and stuff and stupid s i hate them

Wonder Mike 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	2	This didn't make me laugh at all, i didn't even chuckle in my mind, largely because everything is wrong with this article. refering to things and people as "gay" (or assfaggots) isn't funny either, it's the embodiment of stupidity, unless you mean they are in fact homosexual, in which case it shouldn't be considered an insult (if you consider it an insult that makes YOU one of those People who are totally all like "we're the best" but their aLL gay and stuff and stupid s i hate them), meagerly an adjective (or unless it will sound funny, like calling Chuck Norris a Nancy-boy).
Concept:	3	i really struggled to figure out exactly what this was about, even with the explicit title. I'm guessing it's the people at school that think they're "it" and are in fact not, although i can relate to what you're saying it's not especially uncyclopedic and just sounds like you're bitching. but even after figuring it out (i think) it's not really a good concept, despite the fact these people are ubiquitous throughout all schools it just doesn't work. and i'm really not sure what that bit at the end, about your mom, was even trying to say.
Prose and formatting:	0	very poor, you used very vague "txt spek" all throughout the article which didn't add to it at all and i think you even managed to spell some of the text speak words wrong, it had the effect of looking like a crazed cat typed it: too difficult to understand.
Images:	0	nothing to comment on.
Miscellaneous:	1.25	I'm really sorry i gave this zero but it actually was that bad. and way too short. shit i never noticed the discussion page! fuck! sorry! i get it now, but still the text speak was too difficult to understand although i get why you're using it now. also when writing an article you have to bear in mind that not everyone checks the discussion page first and it should be immediatly clear what you're talking about.
Final Score:	6.25	the main problem is the concept here i think, and that it's just too shaky, if you'd like go to my talk page and explain to me what you really were meaning (if i have misunderstood) and i'll see if i can hep you go in a better direction.
Reviewer:	--orian57 17:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick second opinion:

OK, I saw the talk page comment, and I had my suspicions when I read this, but... Orian's review here, for me, illustrates the problem facing this kind of article. Compare it to the Led Zep article featured today, and the VFH voting page for it - people miss the point if you're too close to the mark, particularly if the piece is short as this one is. With something like this, you need to put in signs to people that the article is a parody without making it obvious. One of the ways to do that is to add more content, and format it better, making it look more professional. Another is to add a few moments that undermine the point of the article - such as the reference on the Zep page about "he must be gay. If he was straight he wouldn't be so attractive" or however it reads. The trick with this kind of thing is always to find the balance between parodying what you're aiming at, and reproducing it so accurately that people such as Orian here, miss the point.

A different approach may be to make it a literary criticism style piece, where you have a few lines of junk in this fashion, and then try to write a pretentious literary dissection of it as a masterpiece of postmodern alienation, that kind of thing. I dunno, they're just a few ideas, but at the moment, as Led comments on the talk page, what you have here is quite slim and easy to mistake for just another rant destined for QVFD, so I think you need to do something more with it. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 19:51, Mar 20