Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Motherfucking papyrus containg the fucking spell to fuck it possessor
UnBooks:A Brief Overview Of The History Of The Papyrus Containing The Spell To Preserve Its Possessor Against Attacks From He Who Is In The Water And Its Role In Shaping Human History, Along With Alternate Versions Of History In Various Parallel Universes[edit]
I don't know what to do anymore, I really don't. What does it fucking take to get an article on the main page? • • 
• 
• 11:21 • Tuesday, 12-01-2010
- Remember how I said I'd proofread this for you? Well, I'll do you one better: seeing as this is up for review, I'll give it a full-fledged Pee. Thing is, it will take a while, though: it's my second day of class, and already I'm getting assignments up the ass. I'll try and get it done soon, though. That cool? —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 20:03, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
| Humour: | N/A | Before I start saying anything else, I would like to mention a few things. First off, I looked at Hype's and UU's talk pages, and I do agree with their criticisms to a point. This article really is all over the place. Secondly, I'm going to refrain from giving you scores, as what you're looking for is more general advice than criticism. Thirdly, I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get to doing this. I've been busy and, well, we all know how that is.
You've got a few--as I see them--genuinely funny lines in here. Problem is, they all seem sort of random (Nephren-Ka's shark hobby and pubes-shaving incident, for instance). While the random-silly thing certainly has its place, because this is an article making fun of Egyptology, you should go for a more "scholarly" approach to your humor. You want to be making fun of those dry, boring academics and their overly-zealous study of Egyptian books with silly names and nonsensical content. You do make the content seem silly, sure, but without the academic seriousness of the Egyptologists you're making fun of, it just comes off as random, silly stuff. Basically what I'm saying here is you need something to either "play the straight man" or have some dry humor in there to contrast with the silliness you've got going on. |
| Concept: | N/A | The whole "make fun of Egyptology" thing is a solid-enough concept, but--as I said before--you need some sort of humorous-though-scholarly undercurrent to make it seem as though that is what you're doing.
The four supposedly-historical events you choose to highlight are alright, but your attempt to link them all chronologically is kind of forced. It would probably be better off if you didn't mention the interceding events. Also, the bit about the tomb robbers is kind of a lull. What I would do is have a section about the mythical history of the Papyrus (the stuff about Ra), and then have three or four major instances in history where the Papyrus might have had an influence. Naphren Ka and Moses work perfectly well, and then I'd throw in one or two totally random, unrelated ones like the Battle of Trafalgar or the sinking of the Bismarck, or something. The fact that these later two are clearly totally silly and unrelated to Egyptology undercuts the reliability of the ostensibly-totally-serious Egyptologist types you want to be undercutting. |
| Prose and formatting: | N/A | I (and other people) have mentioned before that the writing here is in need of some proofreading. Though most of it is totally fine and grammatically correct, it still sounds sort of awkward. It isn't the worst thing thing in the world, but still. After you revise/rewrite/whatever it is you're going to do with this, I can go through and proofread/correct/change whatever has to be. |
| Images: | N/A | You're pretty good at picking out appropriate/funny images, so you probably don't need any help/advice from me. |
| Miscellaneous: | N/A | It's not that your Papyrus article is/was/was ever bad. No one that voted against voted so because the article was bad, but because it was either "all over the place/muddled/inconsistent," which is a problem a lot of writers have, or because of the writing/grammar, which can be fixed. So yeah. |
| Final Score: | 15 | I know you've written and revised this a ton, but that shouldn't discourage you. I had an article a while back that I thought was really good and that I put a lot of work into, but that no one else seemed to care for. I would write/revise it, put it up for review, revise it again, nom it, have it fail, get pissed, and do it all again a few weeks later. I was pretty discouraged. I had either the article or its constituent parts reviewed at least six or seven times before I finally "got it right," so to speak. When it eventually got featured, I was happy and proud not only that it got featured, but that I had stuck to writing/rewriting the same hopeless article over and over again until I got it right. Anyway, I had a point somewhere in there.... Basically, just keep at it. |
| Reviewer: | —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 19:52, January 16, 2010 (UTC) | |
Same thing happened with Leprechaun. 
+
=
20:55,16January,2010
- I thought about mentioning that in my little pep-speech too, but I didn't. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 05:30, January 17, 2010 (UTC)