Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnNews:Stand Up to Stand Up to Cancer
UnNews:Stand Up to Stand Up to Cancer[edit]
Ultra-right-wing blowhard + 9/11 + cancer charity = Comedy Gold. Yet somehow I'm unsatisfied with this. -- Kip > Talk • Works • •
21:04, Sep. 9, 2010
10+9+5 = 24 hours or less --—John Lydon 07:35, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
| Humour: | 9.5 | Okay, I have no idea why you’re “unsatisfied” with this article because it is absolutely brilliant. I officially read through this article eleven times (Yes, I counted) looking for something to nitpick about and I found something new to laugh about each time. That, my friend, is a rarity. Usually, seeing how many times a I can read through an article and still laugh at it is my gauge for it’s humor value. Most articles don’t make the first read through. A few make it to read through 5 or 6 before I get bored with them. Yours made it to eleven. Only two other articles have held my attention that long. Now that I’m pretty sure you have enough smoke blown up your ass, let’s start the review.
As I said, the humor in this article is outstanding. I really think you nailed the “Neo conservative” editorial feel. The only minor nitpick I could find through the entire article (and trust me, it is minor. It took 11 reads to find it) is the sentence “They're more concern with making themselves feel good with their little "causes" than actually stopping evil in the world. C'mon, morons!” Everything up to and after this point was spot on angry conservative ranting. This one sentence however, (okay two sentences if you want to be technical) breaks the mold. I just could not see a conservative columnist name calling. It’s just not their style. They tend to push the reader to draw that conclusion themselves. For example, in this sentence “Giving them a single dime would be the equivalent of donating to Al Qaeda.” You absolutely nail the feel of a narrow minded, agenda driven rant. The columnist doesn’t flat out call the EIF terrorists, but he draws some pretty bold lines which makes it hard for the reader to come to any other conclusion. Again, I know this is a minor nitpick but it’s probably the only flaw in the entire article humor wise. Besides, what else was I going to put here? I guess I could have typed ROFL a thousand times or something but it’s too late for that now. |
| Concept: | 9 | Politically driven stuff is not usually my cup of tea. In fact that’s pretty much why I tend to shy away from UnNews altogether. I would tend to think that most Uncyclopedians feel the same, that’s why they waste their lives here instead of on CNN or Fox News. But every once in a while, a piece comes along that is so well done, you forget that it has political ties. It’s just funny. This is one of those. Everything works here. From the author’s bio at the top to the images to the actual article itself, it’s a homerun. I tried my best to find something, anything to critique here but it was all in vain. I guess there’s only one thing to do here. ROFL, ROFL, ROFL…. |
| Prose and formatting: | 8.99 | Again, spectacular work. I honestly believe if I were somehow able to copy this article and slip it into the New York Times, most people would believe it was 100% real. You absolutely nailed the flow of an actual editorial piece by a disgruntled politically driven whacko.
Fortunately, for the sake of this review being something other than completely useless, I was able to find a few minor mistakes. (Emphasis on the minor). In the third sentence, you put by instead of be. “in the radical's mind, any means can by justified to meet a goal”. Also, in the third paragraph, you use the present tense instead of the past tense of concern. “They're more concern with making themselves feel good with their little "causes" than actually stopping evil in the world.” And finally, well……. actually, that’s pretty much all I have. Damn you and you’re good writing! How am I supposed to give an in depth and insightful review on something done this well?! |
| Images: | 9.8 | I really was torn between what I liked more about this article, the actual article itself, or the images. The first image is hilarious. The only thing that would make it funnier is if that was their actual logo. Very nice chop job here.
The second image is, well, it’s not what I would call funny. It’s actually kind of sad. Then I read the caption. Now I’m going straight to hell because I laughed for almost ten minutes at a kid with cancer. Thanks for that. Again, everything looks great here. Even the small photo of the “columnist” (who is that by the way?) looks fantastic. |
| Miscellaneous: | 9.3 | Averaged Score |
| Final Score: | 46.59 | I really don’t know what else to say about this article. It’s a guaranteed feature for sure. I honestly tore this entire article apart looking for even the smallest details to pick apart. Maybe it was the lack of sleep, maybe it was the model glue I just huffed, or maybe it was the hooker who keeps screaming about how she doesn’t want to die from my closet, but I just could not find much of anything that I didn’t absolutely love here. Very, very well done sir. |
| Reviewer: | --—John Lydon 10:30, September 14, 2010 (UTC) | |
Wow, there's a self-esteem boost! Unfortunately, I don't think this will be featured, since the subject is no longer timely. Oh well. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 23:28, Sep. 14, 2010