## editPee Review #1 for posterity's sake

My first semi-complete article in a pretty long time. It's not what you think it's about. I think it's pretty funny, but very much so incomplete and in need of some serious polish. Along with your comments, please tell me where I can go buy some article polish, and what brand you recommend.

I think the history section goes on for too long, and might be better suited as a sub-page to the main article. Also, I think the tone may be inconsistent, since this was written piece-meal over the course of several days, with various moods. Of course, there are probably other problems, too.

So have a go at it, ye newly invigorated pee reviewers, and learn the benefits of a higher education. Sir Groovester | Contributions | Talk Page 06:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

 Academiais being reviewed byCajekHi!Your Source for Fine Scented PeeAnd Whatever Else Comes Out Of Him

I'm a VERY different reviewer than when you first yelled and cursed at me, Jim :D    <-> (Dec 13 / 17:54)

I don't think I cursed at you. I will admit to the yelling though. Best thing I ever did, right? Right...? Sir Groovester | Contributions | Talk Page 18:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it scared me. You're scaawy. WOOOoooOOOOooo    <-> (Dec 13 / 18:11)
Review the article, or I might have to throw a white sheet on my head and float around going "OOOOooooooOOOOooooOOOOooo! I am the ghost of fuUUUUUuuture Cajek, who diiiIIIeeed, because he did not reviiiieEEEEwwww Jim GroooOOOOoooovester's article in tiiiIIIiiimme."
Now that, would be scary.Sir Groovester | Contributions | Talk Page 18:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Be patient! Humbug!    <-> (Dec 13 / 18:51)
 Humour: 6.9 * Intro [8] Pretty good intro, actually. Something I didn't expect. 1 History never recovered from these guys 1.1 Classical Era [7] somewhat rambling, but I understood what you were talking about (philosophy major, holla). You could leave out that weirdness about Socrates and still have a solid section. 1.2 Medieval Era [6] more than average rambling. I still understood it, but it was fairly boring. I'm not sure you need this section. The gutenburg thing was weird, granted, but not necessary. Bringing in the TMNT was unexpected, and helped the score on this section. 1.3 Renaissance [6] Lol, uh, I don't really remember that in intro. REALLY random plus no ass-kicking?! Unless Renee Descartes kicked the universe's "ass". 1.4 Enlightenment [7] Leibniz... oh man... uh anyway, yeah slightly better. I think the problem with 1.2 and 1.3 is simple continuity and the "nobody-cares" factor. This one avoids both problems barely. 1.5 Modern Day [8] heh heh. wormholes. heh heh. Is that an in-depth review, Mr. Groovester???? 2 Acedemia Today [6] Again, rambling. I'm starting to see your writing style is more formal and serious than average. That would work well for something not formal and serious instead of a treatise on the parody of academia, which is what this apparently is. 3 Academia in Fiction 3.1 In Movies [7] Funny, but, unlike every other section in this article, it's not long enough. 3.2 In Television [7] What the... okay? 3.3 In Video Games [8] Sounds pretty kickass. This is an okay length. 3.4 In Comics [7] That's fine. 4 Academia in the Future [6] 5 Footnotes 6 See Also Concept: 8 above average concept here. Prose and formatting: 9 The only problem I had was that it wasn't broken up enough. Other than that, this was written really well goods. Images: 8 You had a good concept going with the pictures. Miscellaneous: 8 averaged Final Score: 39.9 I think I basically laid out the problems here. I'm not quite sure that this is VFH, it needs some more work. The problems that I saw were along the lines of "too long" and "too random". Hope I helped... you maniac... :D Reviewer: Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 13 / 20:18)

## editPee review number 2 for posterity's sake

 Humour: 9 I Cracked up, does that justify this?... Your jokes are consistently funny and well informed. Concept: 7 Still funny, but the concept isn't the strong point. Don't change it, but the article is more a sort of platform for jokes than a running tongue in cheek or satyrical article. Prose and formatting: 8 Good prose, easy to read and no jokes are inhibitted by clumsy prose. the random english student over my shoulder says you blend writing styles very successfully. Images: 7.5 good Images but I feel the way they all run down the right makes the page ugly and uninviting to look at. I would move The Doctor to the other side, also, maybe break between the images by replacing one with a youtube link and centre-ing it. Miscellaneous: 7.9 Not Applicable Final Score: 39.4 Really nice article, very little need be done to it. In fact, leave it if you want. My opinions are weak. Reviewer: $e^{i \pi} +1 = 0 \,$ ~ |DoS|Did|Yak|

### editPee review #3 for posterity's sake

SecondThird go at Pee Review. I seriously considered the suggestions of the first pee review and the second and chopped, hacked, slashed, the long, unfunny bits into hopefully shorter, funnier pieces, as well as other improvements.

I should mention that I'm going for VFH on this one, so suggestions toward that end would be great. Sir Groovester | Contributions | Talk Page 03:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)