Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/atheism (religion)

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

atheism

This is my first article, a "soft" rewrite which turned into a complete rewrite of Atheism_(religion). Any input is welcome. I can't get the Pee review to link to the right page, which is NOT "atheism" - it's "atheism (religion)": http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Atheism_(religion) AdrianMarcato 14:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	6	Try to keep a more consistent deadpan style, and avoid shoe horning random celebrities into the article, it makes it look meme-y. Also, when you say something to the effect, "Modern scientists say that atheism is impossible", link modern scientists to creationism or related topics, that is generally funny. Finally, try to be as unbasised as possible, attacking both sides of an issue in the same article doubles your source of satire. Also, try to increase the consistency of your article, for example, try making the author have only 1 religious outlook. If By Section: Quotes: I'd suggest removal, or the use of better quotes. Quotes are generally, but not always, not funny, and are often added as space filibusterers. Intro:Tone it down a little bit. Generally, articles should start deadpan and get more bombastic as they progress. The Shakespearian English isn't funny, mainly because you have a Roman Catholic organization using it. Protestants (specifically Fundamentalist Baptists) are the one who still use King James English. Origin: Avoid question mark dates, for "Reginald "sparky" Watson III", put in the proper date of alledged death, and but a question mark after it, for the other guy, make up a birthday. Also, the last part of the "Reginald "sparky" Watson III" sub section is too random, I'd suggest rewriting it. Beliefs: This could use some toning down and internet meme removal. Atheist Churches and Monasteries: I'd delete this, or add something like "if you exclude Unitarian Universalists and some of the more liberal ECUSA churches." Atheist Practices:This could probably use a good purging. The "Garb" section looks like an add-hoc excuse for boobage. Atheism in the Media: This section has a "rambling to get to the end of the article" feel to. Atheism and the Law: Looks too biased. Bias is not funny, and bias in favor of the subject is never funny.
Concept:	7	Overall, its a good concept. However, the article could use some clean up, and there are a lot of slow and/or random sections.
Prose and formatting:	6.5	First off, get rid of the red links. Red links generally give your article an ugly or unkempt feel to it, even if you have only one or two. Imagine a red link as a article of clothing randomly strewn about on your living room floor, even one would make a living room look messy. That is how red links look to most experienced Uncyclopedia members. Second, move the images around to make sure they don't create whitespace, go thru header lines, or have an image-up-on image look anywhere. Finally, avoid really short sections and repeated one-line paragraphs.
Images:	1	Pr0n is not funny, especially on random articles. Bikini pics and semi-nudity (i.e. the person is technically naked, but the naughty bits are off camera) can be funny if used properly, but outright nudity is rarely humorous. In the off chance that your a European and are not familiar with American standards of decency: exposed female breasts (nipples in particular)considered indecency by American standards. In minds of most Americans, an exposed female nipple (or penis, vagina, or entire buttocks) = pr0n, regardless of the context.
Miscellaneous:	7	Improvablity score. The article should be fairly easy to improve. the first step would be a good purging.
Final Score:	27.5	GET RID OF TEH NIPPLES!!!!1!
Reviewer:	--Mnbvcxz 18:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)