Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Updating English Literature
Updating English Literature[edit source]
It's kind of crude. But I like kind of crude. Sog1970 16:40, April 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Good enough of a reason for me. I got it within 48 hours (I'll probably do it within 24, but just in case because something may come up for me...) --Sir Oliphaunte (განხილვა)
19:54, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
| Humour: | 8 | So I must concede, this is one of the most crude articles I have ever read, but at the same time, the crudeness (is that a word?) makes it such a fantastic article. It has a balanced amount of irony, especially with using Gary Glitter, and good use of parody with all these great works which, thanks to you, I can never read the same way ever again...
Now, the Pride and Prejudice is clever, although it does need a bit more attention to detail to catch the jokes, than the other works do. Can't really suggest anything here except maybe work on the flow of it? It's a tough call because it's written well like the book might actually read like, but it does feel a little to wordy to get to the jokes. Maybe that's just me... For Oliver Twist, you do a good job with the flow here. You introduce it as one would expect Oliver Twist to read like and then comes the smut. Well done here, especially since you finish it right before you go over the appropriate level of smut for one section (the uncyclopedia police would be very displeased if you did)...This picture is the perfect clencher for this section, by the way. Gone With the Wind, is a slightly different story. I think you introduce too much smut here, like in this line, ""RHETT: Frankly my dear, I couldn’t give a flying fuck!" This line seems a little bit like overkill and doesn't feel all that necessary. I feel like you could cut some sentences down or out completely, making the section a little shorter and decreasing the amount of smut, like with that line I presented. On the other hand, other readers may find this suggestion to be complete *ahem* bullshit, and it does have a degree of importance since it's a one-on-one dialogue. I just feel like there's a bit too much smut here, but it's up to you if you wish to work on it. Aside from that, a good job with this section as well. Little Women, is good as well, although I'm on the fence about if there's too much smut or just enough. I'll leave that too you to decide. Aside from that, it's pretty good. So your overall humour relies mainly of crude humour and smut, which, surprisingly for me, makes this article work really well. Maybe a little decrease in the amount of smut and this article would be great, if it isn't already... |
| Concept: | 8.5 | A very swell concept. Combine good 'ol British humour and the British sense of smut to make for a pretty good article. The only problem I could find was on a personal issue about the amount of smut there is, but that's already been discussed in the humour section... |
| Prose and formatting: | 8.5 | Good formatting, nothing to complain about that. I believe I did notice some spelling errors, but I wasn't sure if those were meant to be there to show some relevance to the stories, so I just left them there. I would just re-read the article to make sure you didn't miss any of those. |
| Images: | 9 | The pictures and their captions are perfect. You have just the right amount of wording so that their are descriptive enough to make the jokes reach their full potential, but not too long so that it becomes a chore to read. The only suggestion I would have is to change that last picture about Little Women to a realistic picture of an actual lady. The rest of the pictures are of real people, so why change pace with that last image of a portrait of a lady instead? This is just a minor issue, so feel free to change it is you like. If not, I still think all your images and captions are great. |
| Miscellaneous: | 8.7 | 8.7....8.7 feels like a good mixed number... |
| Final Score: | 42.7 | So that's about it, any questions or comments for me? Just jump over to my talkpage and leave something (no smut messages please sir). Just look over my suggestions about smut and this article should be perfect. Hell, I think you should consider putting up to VFH, because I'm pretty sure it would go far with other readers. I'm just a little less accepting of smut jokes, but everyone else here seems to love it, so I would go for the nomination. Hope I was able to help you out mate, cheers. |
| Reviewer: | --Sir Oliphaunte (განხილვა)  17:28, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
| |