From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
edit Clean up plot
Agreed. Not only is it not funny, it doesn't follow the book at all. The book has a plot that could easily be made funny but the author does not take advantage of it and instead uses a bunch of Animal Farm junk. I might work on this myself. -DeathBySnowman (talk)
If you have to write in Newspeak, at least make it comprehensible. You can't just slam togehter random Newspeak words hand rail banana before mousepad tomorrow opposite hello.
edit Suggested Re-writes
I'm happy to do either of these, but seeing as both would require a total re-write of the article, I'd like to ensure that atleast a few other people are behind me.
1) Write article (or translation thereof) in Newspeak. 2) Using wikipedia article as the basis, re-write the article substituting in current US-political words in.
Agreed. This is supposed to be funny, not idiocy. 188.8.131.52 01:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
edit Pee Review
|Humour:||9||Nicely done. Here's my point by point criticism of each section:
|Concept:||10||Well done rewriting concept of book.|
|Prose and formatting:||9.198||I found a couple of minor instances of gramatical errors but only because I'm a Grammar Nazi. I don't see any other issues.|
|Images:||6.5||Appropriate logo reskin and opening picture. Others are great, but I am not a fan of the last four: they're neither ungood, nor good.
|Miscellaneous:||8.7||Average of scores. Whoop-de-do|
|Final Score:||43.398||That was a very good article. Thank you for the read good sir- you deserve a gold star and maybe some ice cream.|
|Reviewer:||- Fe+3 AlFe+2 05:40, March 21, 2012 (UTC)|