Talk:We Are Your Best Friend
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
For some odd reason I've been trying to compleate 3 different things for weeks now and I start something new on the same day I complete it. Anyway that's irelevant. Is it any good for a days work? Could it be featured? In-Depth review apreciated. SK Sir RotM 22:15 11 July 2008
- Well, who were you expecting to review this?
|Humour:||5.8||Sorry, but first impressions just scream "gimmick article". I hate reviewing gimmick articles. Anyway, /me puts one of the very sad songs from Final Fantasy X on background, puts on reviewing pants. And yes, these are red links, but they'll be blue when you move to mainspace (which you should, dammit!)
|Concept:||4||If you get another review of this, your concept score will probably be much higher. But you're stuck with me as a reviewer, and as I've already said, I'm not really one for gimmicky articles, which, you've gotta admit, this sort of is. Just my personal preference. It's a good idea, definitely, but purists are going to take shots at the execution. Also, this needs a lot more background text, as that is where the majority of your jokes are coming from. It reads like DYK at the minute - it needs to feel more like an article if you know what I mean.|
|Prose and formatting:||7||Well, I definitely can't fault the formatting. God knows how many templates, all formatted and aligned correctly. I hate to think how much work's gone into making them look right. The spelling's a bit off (such as "terestrial" instead of "terrestrial"), and I reckon a quick going over with that handy F7 button may be in order to keep it looking fresh and tidy. I've given this a high score because of the sheer amount of volume of templates though.|
|Images:||8||Again, an absolute shedload here. This review is starting to get on my nerves, because this is such an abstract article. They all fit very well with what they are describing, and give the article more of a shoppy feel to it. Two complaints I have, but only minor ones: Some of them I know I've seen before, but you'll only have that problem with experienced Uncyclopedians; and that some of the resolutions are a bit off, but that's easily fixable. Again, sheer volume elevates this score.|
|Miscellaneous:||2||I'm doing a Boomer here and weighing the score rather than averaging it. Why? Because I feel I've given undue weight to P&F and images due to the amount of templates in this. I don't like doing this, but 34-35 seems too high for this article and this reviewer.|
|Final Score:||26.8||This is a very decent article for its type, definitely. I think the kind of people who like this article type would lap it up. However, I'm not one of those people, so I came in with a fairly cynical view. Personally, this is easily mainspace, but I don't think it's near feature quality. And I have to put a disclaimer: Like UU's reviews, this is only my opinion, feel free to get others, and like UU, I'm a fairly tough scorer (though I'm not Hype), so these scores may be below the normal mean. Good luck!|
edit More From PEE
Erm yeah, didn't exactly get the most positive review last time but I've made some changes and I think it's a bit better now. Looking for an In-depth review please. SK Sir RotM 22:39 14 July 2008
- I'll claim this one - it looks interesting... User:Gladstone/sig 13:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
|Humour:||6.7||It's good - it's taking a well-used concept and working it into Uncyclopedic humour.
|Concept:||8||Right, so... It's basically Gnome-Mart isn't it? (For those plebs among you who don't read Private Eye, it's a centre-page cartoon spread that they always have in the Christmas edition with lots of dodgy spoof gifts). Anyway - inherently, it's a funny concept, and the gifts/books are generally well executed, if a little random in places. I'm not sure how well the "We are your best friend" concept fits with it though - the bit about mother/wife/kids/15 year old distured piece on the side seems a bit, well, "Peep Show"-ish. And I never really got "Peep Show", so it's probably me.
My one query really is the gifts bit - it took me ages to work out that they're arranged in rows (Ok, so I am having a retard day...). Perhaps it's worth using some sub-headings to point it out?
|Prose and formatting:||8.5||You know what you're doing, so I feel a bit of a fraud even trying to comment on this bit!
It's easy for me to read as a fellow Brit, your prose is good and generally well punctuated. There's a couple of little splling errors/gramatical mistakes, but it'll be easier for me to edit the article than to try and list them all.
My one issue about the formatting is that it took me a while in the second section to work out that they were in rows (Ok, so I am having a retard day...). Perhaps it's worth using some sub-headings to point it out? Point off (plus half for the typos) as it spoiled the joke slightly for me.
|Images:||7||Sounds harsh? They're all good pictures - but they're a bit dry. That's not why I've marked it down though - oh no. It's a spoof of an online store, right? So GIVE ME A LOGO! (ahem). I don't care how crap it is, but the top welcome bit should have a logo on it.|
|Miscellaneous:||7.6||Average of previous scores.|
|Final Score:||37.8||It's nearly there - I think it's getting close to the finished article. There's just sort of odd bits which need touching up really.|
|Reviewer:||--User:Gladstone/sig 14:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)|