From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
|Humour:||8.4||Section by section, then averaged.
It's only three sentences long AND it has a random statement about the 1960's...? If this section was a paragraph long and didn't mention the 1960's, the article would do better on VFH. Why? Because it would look a lot better. If the intro was a slightly funny paragraph, the article score would be about a 42.
Nice work there. I dig it. However, it isn't quite a "10".
This part of the article was especially good, however I won't go in depth on this analysis. First section: 10 (ha!). Second section: 7 (too short). Third section: 10 (woot!). Fourth section: 5 (what the hell? random).
First section: 10 (Russian parody: great). Second section: 10 (American parody: perfect). Third section: 9 (Chinese parody: nearly perfect). Fourth section: 10 (Iraq parody: fantastic). This part also was reviewed section by section.
I like the mousetrap quality of that joke.
|Concept:||10||you have a lot of room here to write using this topic!|
|Prose and formatting:||5||Please PLEASE get rid of every single link that isn't at the end of a sentence! In fact, get rid of ALL those damn links. Also, see my comments about the images. Add categories to your article, and the ending will look more like an ending. -2 for having no ending! bad "yourmotherhasmyunderwear" bad!! |
|Images:||6||I liked the images, but they are all squished into the end. Also, they look weird: different sizes, one is way the hell on the left... line them up all nice 'n pretty!|
|Miscellaneous:||7.4||avg of all the other scores.|
|Final Score:||36.8||The only advice I have is to fix the formatting and make it longer. If you did that, you might have a feature on your hands (more likely a quasi-feature). I liked this article alot.
How do you make an article longer and feature worthy?
|Reviewer:||• <-> 13:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)|