Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnNews:Nature Now Rated NC-17
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
UnNews:Nature Now Rated NC-17[edit source]
I wrote it quick, but it has a lot of thought put into it. But is it funneh? • <2:30, 10 Jun 2008>
- Ok, I'm starting as I mean to go on here, plunging headfirst into Cajek :P --~FAG! +chatline "if it ain't broke, break it" (CUN·VFH)
- Fag you came back! But let me just say that you reviewed it after a bunch of noobs added stupid shit to the article. • <12:07, 10 Jun 2008>
- Ah! Well, that makes minimal difference, what I said still stands I hope :P I'll give you an extra .5 on humour as compensation :P --~FAG! +chatline "if it ain't broke, break it" (CUN·VFH)
| Humour: | 7.5 | Lots and lots of funny all in one article. But why am I giving it 7? Well, the article feels more like a string of one-paragraph-ers, if you get what I mean. None of the paragraphs seem related to each other once you get past the introduction, they're all separate jokes which are highly funny on their own (although Bobo the Musical Dolphin has to be my favourite mini-motif in an article ever) but don't totally... fit together. Each part feels like an introduction to someone new (Hieron) and random (Parents for Awesome Television) that we've never heard of (then again, I am English). Now, I don't know American journalism, having only spent a total of 5 days in America and being too busy seeing the sights in NYC, but over here what we like to do if have a general idea to our news that has an overall message (yes, that's my way of saying all journalism is highly biased {see below}). Maybe if you brought the people you've introduced into the story to argue over a certain point related to one or more of your absolutely hilarious jokes it would have the right feel to it. |
| Concept: | 8.5 | It's such a great idea that I'm suspicious. Seriously. Where'd you get it from? Anyway, I'm honestly trying my best to find a fault here because I don't want to seem like I'm doling out the points from the off. Looking... looking... well, the whole "Republican agenda" thing does feel a little too blatantly biased (even if it does mention "some Democrats") which does detract somewhat from the article. Maybe if you made it a bit less negroes and fags under control, even if I am thoroughly opposed to such attitudes, then it would be a less message-y read. |
| Prose and formatting: | 8 | Looks and feels professional enough, but still retains the old satirical/strange edge. As a professional pedant however, I must point out that there are a few spelling/grammar mistakes (e.g. "although its obviously a buffalo" not only needs an apostrophe, it's also clumsily attached to the rest of the surrounding text) so a little bit of scanning through the article and re-reading it would give it a better feel. You'll probably realise it yourself when you get something called "that funny feeling where you're sort of like 'I swear that's the wrong thing to say', which could probably described as writers' paranoia but while I was writing 'I swear that's the wrong thing to say' I wasn't thinking of it and now I'm waffling." Best abbreviated to... - you get the point. |
| Images: | 7.5 | They fits well, and the article doesn't need any more of them. The captions encourage the anti-FCC bias (which I like: maybe all the Republican stuff can be replaced with the FCC, so it's not too political? After all, it's impossible to feel awkward when you're reading something anti-FCC, probably because they don't represent a straightforward belief like conservativism, monotheism, liberalism, whatever). I just feel funny (not good funny, either) about that first picture. It's just... there. It doesn't do much. It might as well be a big box of green. Maybe if you just put something else that's rather controversial (animal secks?!) or maybe something random (I think the picture of the chimpanzee dirnking its own pee would be perfect for it, but maybe it's too meme-ish and you'll want something similar but different) then it wouldn't just be a space-filler, but would be funny too! |
| Miscellaneous: | 7.9 | Avg'd! (Also, as a side point, I hope you like my writing swathed in parenthesis) |
| Final Score: | 39.4 | One of my biggest problems with reviewing articles (especially ones by people I thoroughly like) is that I'm stuck between not being too generous and not being too harsh in trying not to be too generous. Anyway, the article is a completely hilarious read and I had fun reviewing it. However, despite the objectivity of humour, reviewing has certain requirements to which I must live up to, so regardless of how insanely funny it is (Bobo is my new God), there's still room for improvement. |
| Reviewer: | ~FAG! +chatline "if it ain't broke, break it" (CUN·VFH) | |