Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Are there voices coming from the closet?
Why?:Are there voices coming from the closet?[edit]
I wrote this for a bizarre little game me and Cajek did, where one of us named a title, and the other had to write an article with that title in an hour. This is the result. Probably the strangest, dumbest, most bizarre thing I've written on here. Be merciless. --THE 21:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm always pissing cajek, so I will give THE a tinkle instead. MrN 
Fork you! 00:47, Dec 24
| Humour: | 8 | * Intro [6]
Really just setting things up I guess, but no smiles here from me I'm afraid. It seamed a bit plain. I did not get the R Kelly thing I'm afraid, maybe cos I'm British.
The perhaps your wife bit got the first smile from me. What's with the try throwing a dinner plate bit? This section did begin to get me interested in the article however.
The idea is good, but you take a lot of words to say it. Trim it down and it will work better.
Not too hot for me this bit, really just rambling a bit, rather like this review actually...
As he was already mentioned above the 'surprise' was lost when he came up again here. I like the idea of him doing a narration of events was good, but it was not lol great.
I smiled straight away when I saw the tittle. Believe it or not, coat hangers are actually extremely advanced beings, and, as far as intelligence is concerned, have far surpassed the human race, and are far more capable of grasping complex and elaborate philosophical concepts than human beings are (which is fairly impressive, considering the fact that human beings are complex, elaborate mounds of endless nerves, cells, and electrical impulses sculpted by millions of years of evolution, whereas coat hangers are just twisted pieces of wire). That's one sentence? Dam, if I did not know any better I would say you wrote this in an hour or something... Obviously break that up, and maybe strip out some of the things they are discussing. After the tittle the above paragraph was a let down, however the coat hangars in your closet are arguing about philosophy, you’d best let them do so which interested me. Best not to interrupt em eh? Very sensible.
Not the greatest.
Naa. I would replace this with: Insert favourite gay male icon here is in the closetNo. Don't be ridiculous, he is not.
This was interesting. Nice use of the casual style.
Not great. No smiles.
Well, I guess your setting up to this the whole way through, and it does work quite well. I think the punch line is a little drawn out and might consider replacing it with just You forgot to turn the fucking radio off. Well, I'm not cajek, and I don't do the averaging out of scores thing based on the paragraph scores. My final score is more of an 'overall feel' thing, rather than anything relating to the maths. |
| Concept: | 8 | It's better than the average. I must admit that when I saw the tittle, I was expecting the article to be primarily full of homosexual references, and considering my lack of success with Gay on VFH at the moment I was actually quite pleased that there were few.
I think there are a few possible extra areas which you could expand into if you wanted. How about the wife's lover hiding in the closet? OK, I agreed it's good that it's not all about gays, but how about 'Maybe you're in the closet'? and you don't know it. As in, actually inside the closet, then write the section about being physically inside the closet, with no references to homosexuality at all. Why would you be in the closet? I like the reference to the wife generally. I think you should refer to her a little more generally thought the article. |
| Prose and formatting: | 7 | Well I normally consider the general appearance of the article in this section, but as you have no pictures at all it obviously does not look pleasing to the eye. There are large areas of unbroken text, and it was actually rather difficult to read. Not much to spice the text up, I just had to plod on through it really... The style of talking is fine for the 'guide type' subject, and you are consistent with it thought.
Come now. The lack of links to other articles is shocking. My pet peive at the moment is you're vs you are. Maybe you have mixed them on purpose, I'm not sure but usually I think it's best to use formal or informal language consistently throughout. For me (and I always say this in my reviews) you can do to shorted/simplify some of the sentences and still say the same thing. I guess some of the structure is necessary to create the effect, but I generally like to see as few words as possible used. I think this article can be improved quite a lot if you do this. Personally I like to look for the interesting concepts in an article and obviously the gags. For me the words just get in the way, and the less of them the better. Your punctuation is much better than mine I can tell, but there are a few places where you have some errors, but I guess that's because you have not proof read it properly. Basically the prose is fine, but needs a little touching up here and there. The formatting is poor as there are obviously no pictures. |
| Images: | 0 | Um? |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | Well if I averaged per Pee as I normally do your score would be very poor here, so I have taken pity on ya and given you 6. Consider yourself lucky! |
| Final Score: | 29 | This is funny. But is spoiled in some places where you have used more words than you could have. Something to consider with my scoreing, Cajek and me have slightly different views on how this should be done, but for me, it's a hell of a lot harder to get a 9 than a 8. So although I'm giving 8's you will have to come up with some more rather good new concepts and gags to bump this up to 9.
I'm Not sure I would have done better in one hour though dude! You would have kicked my ass for sure. ADD SOME PICTURES!!! |
| Reviewer: | MrN Fork you! 02:10, Dec 24
| |