Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Mnbvcxz/Female

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

User:Mnbvcxz/Female

Rewrite of female article, based on some of my edits there. This article is a bit rough right now, but not horrible.--Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 03:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 03:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The ideas are all there, but they all, need development, and probably, should use, less commas, try to rewrite sentences, so that they don't, need commas. There are many commas here in places where they're not needed.

Sometimes flopping the sentence structure around yields other avenues with language and message. The word choices don't flow well. There's a great war of the sexes article here but the jokes needs to be fully developed and delivered smoothly. I'd be more than happy to "re-word" the article without changing the essence if you're up to some collaborating.--    23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and fix the grammar if you want; I do tend to ramble and make sentences overly long; if you wondering, yes, this is ironic semi-colon overuse in an attempt to mildly funny. --Mnbvcxz 07:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do, I'm bored as hell (quitting tobacco smoking too) and I'm not in the mood to start any articles from scratch for a few days--    09:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to try doing a couple pee reviews too. --Mnbvcxz 16:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I finally did it. I tackled the Cosby Canard and I think I did a workmanlike review.--    22:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Humour:	5	Heya, Mnbvcxz! Let's see what we've got here. As is the custom amongst my people, I'll take this section-by-section. Lede: 7/10. The lede is a little short, I think, but it sort of sets the stage for two jokes: that the article is going to deadpan things about women that everyone already knows, and that the article is going to be sexist. I am quite pleased by the actual Oscar Wilde quote. I don't think I've seen one of those on the whole wiki before. Why Females Suck/ Lede: 5/10. This is all just sexist stereotypes, which is a little amusing but not hilarious. I don't like the first sentence, since saying "why females suck" and then immediately talking about men doesn't flow right. Why Females Suck/ Pregnancy: ummm/10. I guess this section is all right. It definitely causes me to raise an eyebrow, seeing as you've been running around the wiki adding pregnancy everywhere it could possibly fit - pregnancy of both the female and male varieties. And I don't totally get why you're doing that. But it's fine in this article's context, except that I don't think it should be the first section under "Why Females Suck." Maybe the second or second-to-last. Anyway, the humor here is fine but not stellar. It's the same "deadpan/sexist" stuff we've seen so far, with nothing particularly surprising. Why Females Suck/ Menstruation: 3/10. There are problems with this section. The biggest one is that it breaks with the joke of the article (the whole deadpan-sexist thing) and does a complete 180: instead of stating the obvious, now it's denying the obvious. I don't think you can have it both ways in this article; it would be better to keep your narrative voice consistent. Second, the prose is confusing in places; the first sentence I had to read three times before I understood it wasn't about young women having sex with old women. Third, the whole masturbation/religion thing seems out of place and like something that doesn't belong in this article. Why Females Suck/ Queefs: 5/10. It's kind of juvenile, and slightly out of place, but it fits with the theme of "only perverts would be into this." It's a little short, but not a terrible section. I smiled at "screwing a whoopie cushion," anyway. Why Females Suck/ Women need to sit down to Pee: 7/10. Well, first of all, change this title; all the others are nouns, and this is a sentence. Suggestion: "The need to sit down to pee". Also, consider converting the bold into italic: bold is just really, really loud. This section is reasonably amusing, and I smiled at "numerous design flaws in the vagina" and "lacks the mechanical skills to lower or raise the toilet seat on her own." The problem with this section is that the prose isn't very tight at all. The jokes are there, but they aren't being told in the most effective way. I'd say, take some time with it. Why Females Suck/ The Vagina smells like Fish: 3/10. Again, change the title to a noun: maybe "Fish-scented genitals". This section really isn't funny to me at all, except the title and the concept of the section existing. You might just want to try something incredibly short, like Fish-scented genitals Enough said. Why Females Suck/ Women don't like Buttseck: 3/10. Again, funnier and better as a noun, like "Distaste for buttsecks" or "Resistence to leisure activities involving buttsecks." The prose is continuing down a weird path that started in the last section: Now the article has abandoned its deadpan encyclopedic tone almost completely and has gone from "underpaid encyclopedia editor" to "frustrated frat boy." I like the first tone a lot more; sexism is always funnier from someone trying to be professional and rational than from someone who's just pissed off. The Solution: ummmm/10. I guess I did kind of laugh at this, just because I couldn't believe I was reading it. Yeah, okay, I think this is a good way to end the article. I'll hand that to you. See Also: Improve it/10. These S/As aren't as funny as they could be. What with the sexist tone, you could see also things like "dishwasher" or "laundry" or "kitchen" or "a pile of rotting fish carcasses".
Concept:	5	The concept of a deadpan sexist article with an encyclopedic tone is kind of obvious, but good. I award you 5/10 because sometimes you follow it and sometimes you don't.
Prose and formatting:	5	The prose is a little uneven. Sometimes, it's extremely good, but sometimes it gets confusing. There's a little basic proofreading to be done that could be handled at UN:PS, but nothing too bad. Mostly, I just want to see the tone kept more consistent and tightened up. The formatting is a worse problem. The article's kind of ugly. I really don't like the Biatch template at all or the way it crushes everything to the left margin: if you've got to use it at all, consider using it further down on the article. And with the pregnant woman on the left, things get *really* claustrophobic as literally 2/3 of my monitor are taken up with something other than space for the article. Left-left-right is a weird orientation for pictures, and their sizes don't fit the lengths of their sections very well, with "pregnancy" ending too soon for the picture's size and "The Solution" chopping off a section break.
Images:	3	Three is a harsh score, but frankly, this is the kind of article where we just expect more and better images. I would think of five at minimum, and at least one or two of them should probably picture a fairly normal, clothed, unpregnant female with a funny caption. Also a good idea: medical diagrams. Honestly, I just don't dig the Eye-of-Sauron-as-vagina joke. I've already seen that joke on vagina and I didn't like it then, either. I'd lose that picture and add three more non-fetish pictures.
Miscellaneous:	7	Seven, to take it to 25, which according to the guidelines is Inadequate: Might be rewrite. Which, unfortunately, sounds about right. Your rewrite is certainly better than the original article, which starts off okay but quickly descends into listcruft and random unfunniness. But you're not there yet. Once you even out the tone and fix the formatting, you'll be well on your way to having a solid Uncyclopedia article on a probably pretty high-traffic page.
Final Score:	25	Good luck! It's nice to see someone actually rewriting stuff for a change. It's usually easier and more fun to start your own article from scratch; rewriting can feel like a chore. But we appreciate it!
Reviewer:	pillow talk 21:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Dr. Strange did do some prose updating, so that might be why the prose is a bit uneven. (I didn't bother to fully re-read, I was distracted by other tasks, then forgot about it.) --S'r Mnbvcxz 17:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, do you think its good enough to replace the mainspace article yet? --S'r Mnbvcxz 17:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I think it's an improvement over what's there now, and that's the only real litmus test of whether it should replace that content. Still, replacing an entire established article can be politically tricky. You might want to put the old Female on VFD and suggest that it be replaced with yours. Or, you could just be italic and do it. I wouldn't mind, either way, but sometimes when you do the latter, random admins jump out of nowhere and fuck your shit up. pillow talk 22:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)