(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

## 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)

## 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)