Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Admins Gone Wild II
Admins Gone Wild II[edit]
Need this one pissed and shit on.
On it... 
pillow talk 00:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 |
PEE REVIEW IN PROGRESS of giving you his opinion and pretending you care. |
| Humour: | 0.3 | Hey, Bigfeet. So, I see this is in the ICU pending Pee Review, and you'd like for it not to be deleted.
Problem is, it's exactly the kind of thing we delete all the time. Let's look at the humor paragraph by paragraph. Paragraph 1: 1/10. Your first sentence is kind of like a lede, in that you at least say what you're talking about. The basic concept is that a bunch of admins from various wikis all engage in orgiastic sex with each other. I really don't see the humor in that. I mean, you could claim that any group of people had orgiastic sex with each other. "The Dallas Cowboys all got drunk and naked and had an orgy." "The U.S. Congress all got drunk and naked and had an orgy." "The cast of 24 all got drunk and naked and had an orgy." Are those sentences funny? I don't think they're funny. Then, in your second sentence, you break into a quote right in the middle of the paragraph, which is just sloppy writing (quotes always require a separate paragraph) and confusing. And then we name various people who had sex with other various people. Funny? Not in my view. I mean, we already know they're all having sex with each other. It's not surprising or creative or interesting. It just lists random people and has them fuck each other. So? Then we've got some lewd stuff about Jimbo Wales. Pointlessly lewd stuff about public figures is just the lowest form of comedy, man. "Tom Cruise ejaculated all over his own feet." Is that sentence funny? Again... not to me! Paragraph 2: 0/10. This paragraph is not only unfunny, it's incoherent. I'm not even sure what it means. It just seems like an excuse to include the {{username}} template in an article about an orgy, implying that the reader was also somehow tangentially involved in all the drunken sex. Yeah, all right. Doesn't have me rolling. Paragraph 3: 0/10. I have no idea what AAA is. A user? A reference to AAAAAAAAA!? This paragraph is full of all kinds of Uncyclopedia in-jokes from 2006, which we are all sick to death of. Seriously, if I never see another link to kitten huffing, it will be too soon. And we've got some more pointless sex between random people. Yawn. |
| Concept: | 2 | It's possible in theory that an article about the sexual practices of admins could be funny. In theory. But it would have to be approached with a lot of care and subtlety or it's just juvenile nonsense. And in this iteration, what you've got here is juvenile nonsense. |
| Prose and formatting: | 1 | The prose is atrocious. There are spelling and grammar errors everywhere, which, as I mentioned, makes some parts of the article downright incoherent. There are only six links, and one of them is red. As for the formatting, there really isn't any. It's just a block of text with two arbitrary paragraph breaks. There are no sections, no pictures, and generally no attempt to make it look like an article at all. |
| Images: | 0 | I'm glad there are no pictures on this one, but for no pictures, I award you no points. |
| Miscellaneous: | 0 | Averaged, and rounded to zero. |
| Final Score: | 3.3 | Bigfeet, this is unredeemable. Let it die. Here's the boilerplate advice we give to new users: read UN:HTBFANJS. Look at UN:BEST to see what we do find funny. And for God's sake, man, stop vandalizing the Beginner's Guide or your stay here will be a short one.
And here's my advice: try writing an article that's satirical rather than just random or obscene. Think of something that actually exists and that you're familiar with, and something that's absurd about it or that could be absurd about it, and write an article that pokes fun at it from that angle. There is nearly a 100% chance that this article will be deleted within the space of a week. That's a good thing. If you stick around and write yourself a real article, you'll be embarrassed by this article a month down the road. Good luck! |
| Reviewer: | pillow talk 00:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
| |