Forum:So.. What's next for my article ?

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Help > So.. What's next for my article ?
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3670 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Well.. I submitted an article for pee review and just received an absolutely STELLAR review (overall score: 8/50). I understand that by submitting the article for review I had some form of moral contract (Cough cough.. what the heck is that ?) to abide to the review.

Unfortunately, the comment was basically that I should huff it (or at least completely rewrite it) - not very constructive. Now, assuming that I wish to comply, what is my next step ? blank out the article and submit it for QVFD ? +ICU tag it?

On the other hand, the reviewer is apparently on a review spree and giving a lot of bad reviews (not ALL though..) so maybe I should take this with a grain of salt (read : ignore the whole thing)?

So, basically, I'm just looking for a bit of help on :

  • how to interpret the review
  • how to self-destroy an article if need be.

--Ivan w 12:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I had a look at NXWave's Pee Reviews - he doesn't seem to be one for constructive criticism, does he? Or indeed many reasons for his reviews at all, good or bad. The sheer speed going on there also makes me question whether he can be reading things as thoroughly as a Pee Reviewer should...? On the other hand, he has mainly been reviewing rubbish, which is often hard to say a lot about. At a first glance, I wouldn't lump your article quite under that category - it's not the best article in the world, but I personally wouldn't have given it scores that low. Care to comment, NXWave? --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 13:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Basicly, I read the article and I felt it was bad, I did read it and take a look at it. --NXWave 14:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
This is nonsense! "You reviewed" almost 40 articles in 142 minutes, and trashed most of them. This is not the purpose of Pee Review. I agree we need to find a way to reduce the backlog, but what you've done is pointless. You would have done more good to spend 15 minutes doing a serious review on each of 9 or 10 articles. Sir Roger 18:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding what Strange but Untrue said, I kind of disagree. I think there's a lot you can say about rubbish-y articles- giving advice on how to make them better, for instance. And that's something NXWave most certainly did not do. I almost feel I should Pee Review his reviews:
Humour: Only in realizing that you've waited a month for six sentence fragments talking vaguely about "potential."
I think I speak for most of the thirty-some users in asking that you not Pee Review until you're willing to put some effort into it. --vyvyan 04:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I guess you're right actually. I'm getting confused with my normal business of ICUing, where you have to stick them on so many things there's often no time to pick apart what exactly is wrong, and you have to assume bad faith in a lot of cases, whereas when things are submitted to Pee Review it proves someone actually cares about them and is willing to do more. --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 13:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Ya, I actually find it easier to write more about worse articles, at least the ones that aren't utter crap. They have the most room for improvement, whereas the best articles, though easy to read, have nothing really to improve upon. Also, for the record, NX didn't trash my article P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 05:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems NXWave is determined to continue, s/he has done several more Pees, even though the to be reviewed section is almost down to no articles. What do we do now? Wait for enough people to complain? Sir Roger 01:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal tools