Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Asexuality
Asexuality[edit]
Talk - Contributions 14:50, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
I haven't done one of these in awhile. Maybe I'll actually pull my weight around here again. ~ 
Talk 02:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
| Humour: | 5.5 | This is the part that could do with the most work, I'd say. The article as a whole progresses nicely, and flows from one section to the next well, but there's little in the way of jokes and humor to make the reader chuckle as he tackles the piece. I used to call this "interior decoration" when I was doing sketch: it's the stuff that keeps the audience interested while you develop the concept of the piece, keeping them entertained while the big idea moves in for the kill. Really, there's not much of that in the article as it now stands (I'm seeing the jokes associated with the idea of how overblown sex is as the content, which I discuss below), so it could use a bit more in that department to add to the well put quip on science fiction writers. However, because this isn't a long article, you also don't want to overdo this; your concept is your centerpiece and you don't want to overpower it with tangential jokes that distract the reader from the big theme. |
| Concept: | 8.5 | There are a lot of places you could have taken this article, and I'm thankful and refreshed that you chose to take a high road with it. You could easily have gone "blue" and rode the article into the ditch with sexual jokes and cheap humor, but you didn't, so points there. However, you score highly because you also know a lot about the issue and you use this knowledge to make a good satire out of the piece, complete with the underlying point that so many people seem to forget is one of, if not the, central tenant in satire. Your point here is, as I read it, that "Sex is overrated, so asexuals aren't weird; they're actually kind of smart." You then play this out throughout the piece coherently and without confusion, more points for that. The only thing I can say to make this better is provide more instances or more quips to further this concept - add more scenes of people fucking and the asexual thinking of England. It's funny, and it pushes forward the main point.
Thought from later on in the review: I think you could do a bit more to bring out the fact that it's the lack of interest in sex that makes one asexual, as this is, logically speaking, the unstated minor premise in your concept and could be better used to make the article funnier. Maybe you could include instances of famous asexuals in history... It's up to you. |
| Prose and formatting: | 7 | Some typos, some grammar fixes, a bunch of misspellings, the usual. Could use a proofread. Aside from those minor details, the tone you take is middle of the road and factual, which is perfect for an encyclopedia article, with breaks of comedy, which is perfect for a mock encyclopedia entry. Good job there. The piece flows well from one section to another (I think I've said that already), and I found it easy to read. There was one paragraph that jumped out at me, though - #2 in the section on "Romance and Asexuality." The tone just seemed to jump ship towards the end of that part. Maybe it was the quotes, which I was not expecting and which were too much of a shock for their humor to really hit.
Also, the language you use might confuse people who haven't read the Wikipedia article or looked asexuality up online, as it's a bit erudite. The tl;dr version of the long paragraph I could type out here, but won't because I don't feel like it is this: I knew what you were talking about because I knew the terms you were using, but I don't think you can expect that of others. |
| Images: | 4 | Could definitely use another. And what you've got are not much more than functional - they work, but are somewhat nondescript, with meh captions, especially the first one. |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | Ballparked the average because I'm too lazy to do the math. |
| Final Score: | 31 | I thought this was a good article. Not great, but something that I would definitely make me feel satisfied, knowing it was on Uncyc., taking a solid stance on a topic that hundreds of worse articles could have been written about. Thanks. |
| Reviewer: | ~ Talk 04:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
| |