Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/How To:Get Married
How To:Get Married[edit]
I haven't written anything for over a month except this. Maybe I'm recovering Sog1970 11:32, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
- I'll start reviewing this now :) --Matfen 21:37, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
| Humour: | 9 | First up, thank you for this article! With the odd exception, I haven't really laughed much at Uncyclopedia lately, and this reminded me why I liked it in the first place. I've only chuckled a bit at what I've seen recently, yet this made me laugh out loud at least 9x (that's not the reason I scored it a 9, in case you're wondering.) I'll elaborate more in the concept section. |
| Concept: | 8.1 | I'm a little bit at odds with my own scoring on this, as I'm unsure what to do with it. When I saw the title of your article, I would have expected it to be more along the lines of attaining an actual woman with some degree of informed consent. Maybe in the style of a predator-prey guide, or those Howto:Marry a guy in 10 days articles you see in female fashion, relationships and health magazines and that really stupid movie. Perhaps it was the unexpectedness of the real concept that made the article ring out even more humourously.
The redneck narrator could probably make any topic funny, and a lot of the hill-billy stereotyping and jokes are done really well. It also works excellently as a parody of the mail-order bride business. I like how it focuses more on the dangers of transportation, as well as the difficulty of actually trying to find and obtain the services of a mail-order company. My only qualm would be that it's not quite what a lot of readers might expect with this article, and there's been a bit of fuss over similar issues on VFH, such as Hollywood and the ongoing Batman article. As the Marriage article, this probably would be the same thing. However, the "How To" namespace, as well as the hysterical funnyness at times, will probably diffuse any dissent about reductiveness. |
| Prose and formatting: | 8.4 | It's well-written, and the slang and dialect contractions are still understandable while still conveying a sense of semi-illiteracy about our southern friend. However, (I'm probably being nitpicky here) at times, I found he rambles on a bit too long before going onto his next point. It's not necessarily a problem, as it's better to characterize well, rather than just have continuous flat punchlines; a bit like the difference between Judd Apatow movies and Adam Sandler movies.
The section on Snakes isn't written as lucid as the rest of the article is. I've read it over a few times, and I'm still unsure what the joke is about the mining company, although that's probably because I'm stupid. I liked the Penicillin joke as well, but in its current state it's still a little bit unclear, and people tend not to laugh as much when they get the joke 20 seconds later. Perhaps for that small part, you might want to tone down the hillybillyism to get it as blunt and as clear as possible. The pecker joke was hysterical, but I'm wondering whether it's being used in the right place. It depends on how you want to end the article. Right now it ends with a (in a really sick way) warm fuzzy resolution. You could swap the last two paragraphs around and give them a rewrite so the pecker joke is the last thing to go out on, it'd be a bigger bang. Even if you decide not to, I still feel it's fine as is. |
| Images: | 9 | Tasteful and yet rife with morbidity at the same time. Kudos! I'd be interested to know where you found them, because they really are very... unique. Google images must have gotten better since I last searched. |
| Miscellaneous: | 8.6 | Averaged using Pee. I'd marry that template if its pecker wasn't bigger than mine. |
| Final Score: | 43.1 | I think this must be the 3rd article of yours that I've reviewed, and as with the last two, it was a pleasure. I'm not sure why you've been a bit low on writing activity last month, whether you were too busy, had writer's block, focused your efforts on this and other areas of Uncyc, or you just felt like relaxing without the use of a parody wiki; but the day you stop producing articles like this will be a dark one indeed. |
| Reviewer: | --Matfen 22:31, April 3, 2010 (UTC) | |