Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnNews:Faux Lesbian pipeline from Mexico stuffed

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

UnNews:Faux Lesbian pipeline from Mexico stuffed

Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 02:52, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame this has gone unreviewed for this long. I'll be happy to do this for you.

commence shouting. I have a moment to log in for now, I had to work today when I thought I was going to have the day off and now I have to go out and do something else. The earliest I can finish this review is by tomorrow night EST. Anyone is free to review this at this time. -- Sf13 20:02 EST 10 July, 2010

PEE REVIEW IN PROGRESS Hyperbole is engaged in the dual processes of giving you his opinion and pretending you care.

Humour:	4	Hey, Zim! So... wow... it's been 40 days since you put this one up for review. That's pushing record territory. As I'm sure you know, Uncyclopedians often cherry-pick the reviews they do. They like to pick the best articles, because they get to be part of the "event" of getting a great article featured. They like to pick the worst articles by noobs, because it can be fun to tell someone why they suck so hard. They like to pick short articles, because they're easy PEEING credit. What they don't like to pick is articles by regular writers (let alone admins) where they glance at it and have no fucking idea what it's on about or what they're supposed to get out of it. Because then writing the review becomes a fine line between avoiding insulting the regular writer (and perhaps earning themselves a ban for annoying an admin) and trying not to admit their own total ignorance. They think, "Hmm, maybe someone who gets this will review it." Well, it's been 40 days, and I think it's probably safe to say: no one understands your article, zim. Okay, here's what I know. There are some heterosexual women who pretend to be lesbians. They do this to titillate men, either because they're desperate for attention, or for money. There's a drug war where the U.S. is supporting Mexico in taking down cartels. These two phenomena are not in any way related. You wrote an UnNews back in April that parodied the minor scandal where some Republican staffers spent $2,000 at a strip club. Like all strip clubs, that one featured otherwise heterosexual women grinding on each other for tips. So, those are the basic facts. Those are the pieces to the puzzle, I think. But I cannot fit them together. As hard as I try, I cannot figure out why strippers who engage in a little fake girl-on-girl action belong in the same class as cocaine. I cannot figure out why we would smuggle faux-lesbians from Mexico when we, frankly, probably have the most in the world. I cannot figure out how some Republican staffers going to a strip club can possibly translate into Republicans paying Mexican drug cartels to smuggle erotic dancers into the United States. It's just not coming together for me. I just don't get it. It refers to a bunch of things that are timely, but I can't figure out the concept.
Concept:	2	What can I say, Zim? I'm familiar with the elements of these stories, but I don't know what you're parodying. I don't know if a point is being made. I'm lost.
Prose and formatting:	7	There's nothing wrong with your prose. With respect to formatting... well, you're kind of in charge of formatting UnNews articles, aren't you? The two of us have some philosophical differences about how UnNews should be formatted, but obviously your opinion here is more important than mine. But since this is a Pee Review, and I'm supposed to be reviewing the formatting, I'll give my opinion. As I said on your talk page, I can't see the point of linking random words. On Wikipedia, a word is linked if it's likely to lead to useful information. On Uncyclopedia, a word is linked if it's funny - or if it's a place where Wikipedia would put a link, to maintain the overarching parody of Wikipedia. So, for example, you have: In four hour shoot-out, 63 cartel "soldiers" and administration were killed, with 12 captured. The Federales sustained 2 fatalities and 13 wounded, with the Americans following up closely with 3 killed and 2 wounded. The operation recovered 2 tons of cocaine, 97 stolen vehicles, and 16 women in various stages of preparation for faux lesbian bondage and discipline encounters. Well, our article on "soldier" is a shitty, IP-class mess that we don't want to point people to. The same goes for "bondage." And the numbers all just link to the timeline, which is a fucking monstrosity we'd never want anyone to see. (Saberwolf has done a good job of improving the B.C. article, but these numbers all link to the early A.D. article). Plus, Wikipedia has already determined that these kinds of low numbers should not be links, so it doesn't even function as a parody of Wikipedia anymore. Meanwhile, there are opportunities for joke-links that are ignored. For example, you could say that 63 cartel sodliers were killed, with the Americans following up closely with 3 killed. On the other hand, "women" is a feature, and "cocaine" is a link that Wikipedia would use. So those seem appropriate. That's how I see the link issue. I think some thought should go into links. Bracketing the nouns at random (and leaving red links like "sex workers") isn't good link policy; it just populates links to crappy articles and redirects. Links should highlight good articles and contribute to the joke. Finally, I notice that you've italicized the quote from the FBI Special Agent. Why? No newspaper in the world italicizes their quotes. When, and why, did we start doing that here? Those are my thoughts. Like I said, they're yours to take or leave: UnNews formatting is kind of your baby around here.
Images:	7	Well, it's fine, but I think I would have preferred a picture of faux-lesbians to a picture of real lesbians, since they're what the story is about, and, also, they're easier to look at.
Miscellaneous:	4	Four?
Final Score:	24	I wish I could be more helpful, zim, but how can I improve a joke I don't get? Maybe what I've written will help you see why I didn't get the joke, and whether there's something you can change that would help people like me get the joke. That's the best-case scenario, anyway. The worst-case scenario is that the joke is obvious and I'm a bleeding idiot, in which case you should probably resubmit this for review and hope someone does it better in fewer than another 40 days. Cheers!
Reviewer:	pillow talk 19:58, July 29, 2010 (UTC)