Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Uncyclopedia Madness

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archived

Guidelines

FAQ

Pee Week

Committee

RotM

Uncyclopedia Madness

I've been on a hiatus for quote some time. This is my first article since I've been back. Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 22:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait... should I knwo about Uncyc in jokes before reviewing this? Staircase CUN^t 02:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Reefer (Desk) Madness! —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Only a few, which shouldn't be that hard to figure out. Most are present in the last section with the quotes. For the most part, you're good. The tentacle rape, placenta eating, and heroin devouring are not in-jokes. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 05:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok alright. I'll take this one. I can't tonight, but I will tomorrow. Btw, I LOVE your articles, namely Really Big Tree. They rock. Staircase CUN^t 05:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I wish I could say that I like staircases, but I prefer escalators and elevators. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 05:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm offended. Just kidding. Staircase CUN^t 06:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	6	So I'm going to do this with the section-by-section... yada yada yada. Introduction - THe Introduction was very nice. It set up the story well, told us wahat exactly to expect, and was just about perect. However, I do have a couple of points worht noting. So, if I'm correct, Uncyclopedia was created in 2004, but then why is the movie made in 1936? I'm not sure if that's part of the joke, but if it is feel free to leave it. If it isn't, I think that would be worth changes. Also, you said the movie was also called Wikia Must Burn! (Which it must). I know Uncyclopedians hate wikia, but you never really mention anything about then regarding the plot of the movie, which makes me wonder why it was also called Wiki Must Burn!. The bottom line: You hada couple confusing points that you need to clarify. Other than that, though, good job. Plot - The plot was different from what I was expecting. Persoanlly, I thought there would be more jokes about Uncyclopedia to sort of nail in hat Uncyc is all about. That is something that bugged me, it seemed theat you over-emphasized on tentacle rape and Nigerian e-mails. Like I said above, I was a bit let down because you didn't have much depth on Uncyc in jokes. You should add some more in there, some commonly known ones like, I dunno.... Euroipods? Or not. Whatever you choose. I would just like to see a few more jokes in there from time to time. Also, another something that seemed to annoy me was the length of the plot. Yes, plots need to be long, but this one, I'm sorry to say, got a bit boring to read after a while. What you could do is shorten it up, either that that or add more jokes (Not like "in jokes", but actual lines of humor) into the plot to make it morr entertaining to read. Also, another thing that really bugged me was the fact that you had a bunch of short, simple sentences. It went "He...", "She...", "They..." at the beginning of a lot of sentences. It made it sound choppy, and what yuou need to do is change your sentence type, join a few and make it flow easier. This was sort foa big problem for me, but it shouldn't be hard to fix. The bottom line: you need to add some depth and humor into the section, as well as fixing the flow of your sentences. Reception - This section was average. It definitely wasn't bad, but there was nothing really memorable about it. For that reason, I recommend that you add some jokes in there, to make it funny to read and make the reader say "This guy is Awesome!" (Which you are, going by your articles.) I knwo you can get the jokes in there. Also, one point that I foundslightly confusing was the fact that Uncyclopedia sued for accuracy, which I do undersatnd, but you say they "Uncyclopedia endorsed the movie initially, but then decided that the film should be more accurate to better warn people of the dangers of Uncyclopedia." Which, as I understand, means that Uncyclopedia wanted tehir to be more warning regarding how dangerous te site was, which means that they would want less users. Now, I think Uncyclopedia is always in the running for a good, new user, so that part made me think a little. Other than that there was no real concerns, just the one suggesting you add jokes. The bottom line: THe section was a little bland, and I suggest you spice it up. Also, maybe fix up that part with Uncyclopedia's suit, if it's not what you wereintedning. If it was, go ahead and keep it. Memorable Quotes - I found this section very pleasing. It was better because, unlike the previous, actually emphasized other jokes that float around Uncyclopedia. However, I did not really get the third one, so maybe you could mix it up a bit? The other ones, tough, were really quite great and I enjoyed reading them. The Bottom line: This section was good, and I would like to see jokes imilar to these ones in the rest of the article. Overall, you have a nice little article here. I don't really see it as VFH quaality, but it is still something to be proud of. The main thing you have to do, in my opinion, is add other jokes besides tentacle rape and nigerain e-mails to the plot section because, like I said, it got a little boring to read. However, the rest was pretty solid, maybe add some jokes to the Recption, but the rest was pretty good.
Concept:	6.5	Now, operating seven as an average score, I give you a six and a half, which is slightly below. I have seen my share of articles about Uncyclopedia's in jokes, but this is pretty unqiue and interesting. However, there were a couple confusing parts that I mentioned above that seemed a bit conflicting when it came to concept, which lowered your scorea little. First, you had the Wikia Must Burn!, which was unrelated to the article. I think you should either change that part, or mention something about Timmy starting to hate Wikia while he was on Uncyclopedia. Sceond, you have the part regarding the year of the movie. I think you were going with 1936 for the black-and-white approach, but I think a little clarifcation is needed, because Uncylopedia was made in 2004. Third, you had too much emphasis on just a couple jokes in you plot as opposed to a larger number. I think that yuo should add a couple more jokes from Uncyclopedia so it doesn't get boring to read. And, lastly, we have the law suit. I'm not sure if that tpart of the joke, or if you just put it down wrong. If it was part of the joke, feel free to leave it. If it wasn't, I suggest you change it. The bottom line: You had a few minor problems with the smaller concepts in your article. However, they are easy to fix and the overall concept was solid.
Prose and formatting:	9	Your prose was pretty much perfect. I didn't see any mistakes in speling, and grammer, etc. So good job for that. However, as for formatting, I have one thing to point out. The ending seemed a bit abrupt, and I think that you should maybe add another section between memorable quote and see also. I have no I dea what, but the look of those two right next to each other seemed a bit odd-looking. Maybe you could put a section for Production? I'm not sure. This isn't all that important, but it is something that gave my eye a little bit of annoyance. The bottom line: Great job in this.
Images:	7	Personally, I see nothing wrong with your images. The movie poster was well made. Theother ones were not special, but they weren't unecessary and stupid. I don't really have anything to suggest here, so this section is abit scimpy. One thing I might say is that you had solid images, but none of them really supplied laughs; they weren't funny images and didn't have funny captions that much either. This isn't a huge problem, but to tie in the rest of the article, maybe you should make the captions funny or something.
Miscellaneous:	7.1	See Below.
Final Score:	35.6	You have a decent article, but it can be fixed up. Add depth in "in-jokes" You used two or three of them, and it got a little dull. Fix conflicting/confusing concepts - There wasn't a lot of them, but of the few I think they ned to be changed. Make sentences flow - They were chopy, and reading it got a little repetive. Fixing them will add flow. You do have a good artilc e here. Like I said, I don't really see it as VFH, but it is always nice to have a good article to be proud of. Good luck with fixing it, and welcome back, apparently.
Reviewer:	Staircase CUNt 16:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your pee. The year bit is a joke, as well as Uncyclopedia suing for accuracy. I think that the plot section being a bit long is probably exaggerated by the images, but I'll work on it. The repetition of pronouns is a bit necessary -- the only ways to really fix this are to switch to the third person, which you can only do so much which can be weird if you're continually switching from second to third, or to write passively, which makes it even more boring. Switching from passive to direct can also be very off-putting. I'll see what I can do though.

The only problem I'd have with incorporating too many in-jokes is that A. In-jokes do not appeal to everyone, particularly those that are not as familiar with them, be it regular users or regular readers, and B. Because of this, I'd have to explain the in-jokes a bit, which waters them down. With the ones that I have, I've left them with a link. A few more wouldn't hurt though. I just changed his iPod to a Euroipod. :)

Extra emphasis on Wikia is definitely needed. Or, I could just take the "Wikia Must Burn!" part out. I'm still deciding it. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 21:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)