| Property | Value |
|---|
| rdfs:label | - Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnDebate:Is it morally acceptable to have babies?
|
| rdfs:comment | - It's like UnDebate:Is it morally unacceptable to have babies?, but actually it's the exact opposite. 18:59, 5 September 2010 this is mine, biatches 19:42, Sep 7 actually nvm, I read the other one first, and will do it first. Hopefully will lead to less comparison between the two articles. Socky, if you feel like my first review was worthwhile, I could review this one as well, with the foreknowledge that it would also be slightly prejudiced as it would compare to your other UnDebate due to human nature, BUT I would do my best to review it as how it stands on its own being the deciding factor for the numbers I assign 19:47, Sep 7
|
| dcterms:subject | |
| Mcomment | - Well i have to give you credit because i didn't fully read the original, but I am still so confused on the purpose of this article... It didn't seam very perody like, nor was it much different from the original! I must be missing something... Besides you first was featured!
|
| Pcomment | - All is neat and tidy, no typo's in sight. I just am not sure what the ([sic]) was doing here and there.
Other than that, everything is fine.
|
| Icomment | - There was only one image, and it didn't even have a caption. The only reason i gave you a score was because the image was actually related.
I would advise a caption on the image, since leaving it like that is just too....bland... Spice it up a little! A image cannot be good without a good caption yet a caption can be good with ANY image.
There should be a picture of an abortion clinic with a "buy one get one free" sign or something. That adds more interest to the readers cause come on lets face it, we all tend to ignore the text and just look at the pictures sometimes!
|
| Pscore | |
| Ccomment | - While i was reading this, i actually double checked the link to make sure this was an uncylopedia article not some actual debate. In other words, it doesn't feel like Uncyclopedia to me.
Now the actual idea of the article got me thinking about overpopulation but Uncyclopedia isn't made for thinking it's made for pointlessly laughing at funny but stupid sh*t... You cannot deny that fact.
You tended to miss the actual things that would happen if the world would overpopulate, like stupid things, for instance, the earth would get too heavy and sink into space. I don't know, but add more jokes, or else you may as well write it here.
Now debate wise this could have been much longer. Too long is boreing, to shot only gives you a short laugh. I would say two more minor debates, like: Will this mean no more sex!, will this mean we get free condoms?. Those both add more of a humorous side to it. The only humorous question was the holocaust one, which truly wasn't very funny. Maybe because I'm Jewish, i dunno.
|
| Cscore | |
| Mscore | |
| Hcomment | - O...k.... Wooh, this one is a doozy...how do i do this?
Lets start with this. When you are making a parody of a uncyclopedia article...it's got to be good and give the other one a real FALCON PUNCH in the face. Truth is...where is the difference? It's nearly the exact same thing as the original....which just happens to be made by you.....
I am still trying to understand the point of making this article, it's like a sockpuppet but a article....or not but still.
I'm sorry im getting of track, i tend to write down what is on my mind. Forgive me. Back to the review.
Humor, A comic, absurd, or incongruous quality causing amusement. Theres the dictonary quote for ya... where is that in this article? It's all facts. This is the first time im ever actually able to COUNT the amount of jokes despite my ADD....1....2...3... I counted about 4 jokes. 2 made me giggle. Now I'm not trying to find every folly in your article, as Dr.Phil has said "You can't fix a problem you can't admit to"...actually it may have been "Drink off your worries, screw your liver", eh, tomAto tomato.
What was trying to get to above is that I'm showing you your mistakes, not just laughing at you. Now this article doesn't have enough jokes. It happens. When trying to do an article you get caught up in making sure the point is given that you may forget that you have to make it comedic. Now this article doesn't seem to be something that a lot of comedy can be put into, but your first one got featured, so a parody of it should be filled with at least double the jokes.
Now to be comedic there are a few great approaches. 1. Irony. 2. Unexpected random sh*t. Both are pretty self explanatory, besides, you've been here how much longer than me? A good example of both would be something along the lines of this. "It's the damn asians. They have even tried a limit, yet still they can't hold them in!" You don't expect that, and it's sort of ironic, more a racist stereotype but w.e, again TomAto Tomato.
Looking through this article I have noticed the only blue links that are in sight are the ones that say "edit" on them. That's a problem. Links are important. Lots are needed to make you page look like a rainbow! your page....less bland. Try adding a link that leads to something else like: Asians. For the most part, In my eyes, debates aren't as big on links as other articles, but a few wont hurt.
|
| Iscore | |
| Hscore | |
| Fcomment | - I just don't know what this was all about. All i can say is you made it a pain in my @ss to review. Thanks a lot pall!
|
| dbkwik:uncyclopedia/property/wikiPageUsesTemplate | |
| Signature | |
| abstract | - It's like UnDebate:Is it morally unacceptable to have babies?, but actually it's the exact opposite. 18:59, 5 September 2010 this is mine, biatches 19:42, Sep 7 actually nvm, I read the other one first, and will do it first. Hopefully will lead to less comparison between the two articles. Socky, if you feel like my first review was worthwhile, I could review this one as well, with the foreknowledge that it would also be slightly prejudiced as it would compare to your other UnDebate due to human nature, BUT I would do my best to review it as how it stands on its own being the deciding factor for the numbers I assign 19:47, Sep 7 Ima take this. But keep in mind im going to do it tommorow for the Pee Week. That's right, I'm that much of a jerk. -- 15:47, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
|
