Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnNews:Why are some Democrats pushing to relieve the ladies of their civil rights?

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

UnNews:Why are some Democrats pushing to relieve the ladies of their civil rights?

Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 11:57, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

I'm in here now, 24 hours. --ChiefjusticeDS 23:26, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Humour:	7	OK, I generally enjoyed this one, as a brief foray into American politics you could do far worse, though I would recommend a couple of changes as a few things did disrupt my enjoyment of this one. The first thing that struck me was that the article's readability isn't great at times. The problem as far as I could tell was that you are attempting to make your point by bringing all the information together and then you are also trying to do some explanation for people who are less familiar with the gentleman in question, all this comes together and becomes quite messy in places. Permit me to expand, while the point of the article does come across some sentences at key points feel distorted and I was having trouble discerning what point you were trying to make until you reached the end of the article, where the best admission of what you are doing is to be found. The problem lies partly in a failure to explain what the editorial is getting at at any point in the article, you mention it briefly but a succinct summary of the story is not to be found anywhere. If you take a look at an editorial in a nwspaper you will find that they do indeed start off as you have started, however you will almost always find that, in order to accommodate people who may not have any prior understanding of the story they will start in this way "Mr Stupak is an excellent example of a trend in modern American religion to blur denominational lines in the name of Christian idealism. Yes, Mr Stupak, unhappy with just telling his wife how to think has now decided to tell every other American woman how to think too, by once again championing the Democratic cause for hope, change and outlawing abortion." I think this provides a bit more of a stable context for the reader. This issue is not as big as it could have been as you do include a sentence explaining the story, however it was my feeling that it didn't provide a solid enough context. My recommendation would be to consider padding things out a bit, there is after all no rush to get all the information to the reader so why not just spend a little bit more time just building up to the main point of the article, this would decrease confusion and would give your jokes more of an impact. My only other point is with regard to some of the humour, the difficulty in understanding the start isn't helped very much by the joke about the creation of a 51st state, the joke isn't too bad and made all the better by the fact that it is actually feasible in America, but the problem is that it distracts from the point of your article. I'm not suggesting that you must stay on topic and never ever deviate but rather taht if you are going to make jokes like this you relate them a bit more securely to the article. Look at it this way, by saying to someone who doesn't know much about the US that his constituents live there and want this you really encourage people to think "So what?". Perhaps I am assuming people are thicker than they actually are, but it seems to me that some careful linking would go a long way to mitigating this difficulty. Generally my feeling on your humour is that you don't need to add anything new to the article but should instead focus on better presenting what is already there as it is the impact of your humour and the way it is presented to the reader that is causing you the problems.
Concept:	8	Not very much to be said here, your concept is good and this is certainly something worth writing about. What I like most about your article is that the opinionated, punchy style really puts me in mind of some of the editorial writers that I read. All that is letting you down here is that I felt you could have included a reaction to the quote, as it is the quote appears in the article and it is almost as if it has just appeared without your knowledge as you do nothing to acknowledge its existence, is this deliberate? My feeling is that there is potential for further expansion of your style, however the decision is yours.
Prose and formatting:	9	Things are pretty good on this one, you have an excellent standard of spelling and grammar and I found nothing to complain about on that score. My main problem is the formatting of the templates at the top of the page, they do appear to be stacked up quite a bit and they are causing the date of the article's supposed publication to hover quite a long way from the main prose, would it be possible to cut one of the top templates out? Again a decision on this one is completely up to you, my feeling is that it makes the article look slightly untidy and only one of the templates is necessary. Otherwise not much for me to say, the image is fine and the text is broken up nicely where necessary. So just the templates to take a second look at.
Images:	9	The image is fine and the caption works well with the style you are going for with the article. However I thought that if you made the writer's comment in the caption relate to the abortion issue that the article talks about, it seemed to me a shame to miss out on the opportunity to do this. Beyond that there is very little I can say with regard to your image.
Miscellaneous:	8	My overall grade of the article.
Final Score:	41	I enjoyed this one, it took a bit of getting used to and the humour was undermined slightly by some difficulties with the presentation of the humour. However if you overlook some of these minor problems this is an excellent piece of work that I was justly avoiding reviewing as I was concerned I would have nothing to say. I realise a lot of my problems are nitpicking but I want you to make this article as good as it can be. If you have any questions or comments then feel free to leave them on my talk page. Good luck making any changes and well done.
Reviewer:	--ChiefjusticeDS 12:28, February 11, 2010 (UTC)