From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

edit From Pee Review

This is almost done, all I have to do is finish the Strategy section and add one about Variations, maybe throw in another image or two. Review what's there. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 18:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Humour: 8 I though it was very funny. But, then again, I also play stratego!
Concept: 7 I'm impressed you can even make a board game funny.
Prose and formatting: 10 Look's good.
Images: 9 Nice images. Maybe add another of the board with some funny looking people or something.
Miscellaneous: 10 10's make boxed go green.
Final Score: 44 Definatly ready for mainspace upon completion.
Reviewer: --- UnIdiot | GUN | Talk | Contribs - 21:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Humour: 8 A little dry in some parts, but mostly comical overall .
Concept: 8 Knowledge of game shown, good concept.
Prose and formatting: 7 One or more links dead, and (maybe) forgot Teh General's quantity/rank.
Images: 7 Plenty of images, but none of them really stood out and made me laugh out loud.
Miscellaneous: 9 Why not? And took off one point 'cause the broken link annoys me greatly.
Final Score: 39 Real good article, maybe just a little more work and some new images and it will be better than real good.
Reviewer: --User:Masterof9puppets/sig 00:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

edit February Pee Review

Humour: 3 Made me chuckle a few times, but at no point was I laughing. This article read more like a fan created players guide than anything else. I don't think you need to rewrite the existing content, but come up with a new paradigm altogether. Write the article as if Sratego were an actual historical battle or if you want it to still be a board game give it an air of the fantastic and have it be invented by Napoleon or something. Talking about a board game as a board game is sorta dull as long as we're being honest.
Concept: 5 Partially covered above. Needs more on the fantastic side. Some silly twist to it, but don't just be random.
Prose and formatting: 8 Solid formatting. Article looks great; you obviously have experience working with wikis. Not the most innovative or best looking wiki page out there, but not everyone can create AAAAAAAAA!, ya know?
Images: 5 Most of the images look good, but I don't know how many of them would be useful to you in a rewrite if you chose to do that. I didn't think the biblical image was appropriate here.
Miscellaneous: 5.3 I'm not sure what else to say here, so I just averaged the 4 preceding scores using {{pee|3|5|8|5}}
Final Score: 26.3 I'm sure you could write a good article on this game. You seem to know the game, you seem smart enough, your wiki skills are top notch, but this article just... isn't that ideal article. Be bold, and change things up. Find a funny perspective and write the article that way. This one just isn't doing it for me.
Reviewer: Gage 06:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools