Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/California Marijuana Initiative
California Marijuana Initiative[edit]
Putting up for a seven-day wait for a nom (timed to, if people like it, go up near election day in the States), but of course I'd love a review and/or any comments about the page. Thanks! Aleister 13:23 20 10
You're not going to get your seven day wait Al. I'll have this bad boy knocked out in the next 24 hours. -- ~ 
*You can be Robin* (talk) 15:13, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
| Humour: | 5.5 | It's been a while since I've undertaken a review so bear with me here.
The reason I gave you the score I did was because I felt like you really did an outstanding job writing this piece but it seems to become less of an Uncyclopedia entry and more of a Newsweek article in places. What I mean by that is, the humor aspect is a little lacking. I thouroughly enjoyed reading this piece and felt like I actually learned something from reading it, (which may be a first on Uncyclopedia), but it just didn't strike me as funny. I felt like the intro was virtually humor free until you get to the line about Dennis Kucinich's wife. Normally, I wouldn't be so critical of the amount of humor, but I've read more than enough of your articles to know (and expect on some level) the humor to be non stop. That is simply not the case here. There is a lot of reading, then some good humor, then back to more informative reading. I thought that the "For God and Country" section was the most glaring example of missed oppurtunity. For instance, you explain the "Conservative" ideals and it kind of builds up, and I'm expecting "the liberal" side to be the big payoff. But the liberal side is just a rephrasing of the conservative side, which makes no sense. I felt like this would have been a perfect spot to throw in a "Stoner" stereotype. Maybe something like "The pro-marijuana side counters this argument by saying "Dude.... chill out man. Try some of this bud. This is some killer stuff. It will help take that giant chip off your shoulder." Something along those lines. I could point out a few more instances, but the main point of all this rambling is that I was a little dissapointed and surprised to see that you didn't take each side to the extreme for that humorous parody. I think it would greatly improve the article to nix the idea of trying to stay middle of the road and take each side as far as you can. Make the "pro marijuana" group all hippy stoners, and the "conservatives" all should be overly tight religious nutcases. I think that's where most of the humor will be found in this one. The classic squaring off of the stoners and the man. Cheech and Chong made a living from that concept, so I'm sure your article will make VFH without a problem. |
| Concept: | 7 | Marijuana, and drugs in general, are a near daily occurance on this site. But I did feel like you did a fantastic job of spelling this topic out. I would have liked to have seen a little more information about why the conservatives are so concerned about legalizing pot though. I know you touch on it with the "What about the children" stuff and the idea that beer companies are worried about their profits being cut but this would be another great opportunity for you to do what I was talking about in the humor section and polarize the two groups. I've read quite a few things that have come off the top of that twisted head of yours, so I know you're capable of producing some magic here. Maybe throw in a few details about the doomsday scenario for the conservatives. Are they afraid drum circles will pop up all over, maybe the stench from a billion unwashed hippies will be too overpowering. I don't have anywhere near the creative prowess for coming up with off the wall stuff like that, but I know you can. |
| Prose and formatting: | 9 | From a writing standpoint, this is simply outstanding. It flowed perfectly, was very informative, and didn't have any unneccessary filler. There were a few (three that I counted) spelling errors which need corrected. So PRS may not be a bad idea. Other than that, I can't complain about too much. |
| Images: | 8.5 | If there's one thing I always look forward to in your articles, it's the images. You never seem to dissapoint. They fit the story perfectly, they're always formatted and placed well, and the captions always are great. My one gripe here is that the very last image, the "Marijuana, hey at least it's not crack" one, seems a little forced in it's current spot. Being at the very end, it just gave me the impression that it was a funny image you found and wanted to fit in the article, but ran out of room. I would actually suggest eliminating the first image, of the "buds" and replacing it with the last image. There's not anything wrong with the "bud" image, but I don't think it adds near the humor the "at least it's not crack" image does.
On a final note, the animated Gif links are far and away the funniest part of this article. When I scrolled over the phrase "its backers" and the stoner banana popped up, I nearly spit my mouthful of water all over the montior! It was totally unexpected and very unique. I don't know if I've ever seen it done before in an article. Kudos on that. |
| Miscellaneous: | 7.5 | Averaged Score |
| Final Score: | 37.5 | I may have been a little hard on this article, definately harder than most other reviews I've done, but I guess that's just because I know the level of writing you're capable of putting out. I still feel like this piece could pass VFH as it sits, but I also know you could do more with it. |
| Reviewer: | -- ~ *You can be Robin* (talk) 16:11, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
| |