Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/American (species) (again)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 01:31, April 27, 2011 by Fnoodle (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit American (species)

This is the second time I have requested a Pee Review for this article. The first time, I got a glowing review. However, several weeks later, when I nominated the article on VFH, everyone everyone described it in less than glowing terms. It was positively awful.

I am asking for a much more extensive Pee Review than what is normally done. I blame my Asperger syndrome, but nonspecific comments like "has [some good] elements" or "is a racist manifesto" or "has potential" don't help me improve the article at all. I don't have that natural genius for humo(u)r, so I need a blow-by-blow, a paragraph-by-paragraph breakdown of what is funny, what is not, and specific suggestions to make what is not funny into funny.
---Sincerely, Humble Acolyte of Humor Radioactive afikomen 05:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  • For the record, never trust a pee review from someone with a red link for a name. Second opinions are usually necessary as well. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 03:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Humour: 5 I would say that there is humour, but it does need to have that special something if you want it to be lifted up to the standard of featured article. Be careful to make sure you're not making the same old jokes.
Concept: 9 I personally think that this is an excellent concept.
Prose and formatting: 5 It seems quite a clunky piece of writing, it doesn't flow, nor does it really look that great. I would recommend that you, since you've been parodying Americans as a species, look at WP article and look at the structure, and then try and work your way through that structure and write it into your article; i.e. try and write it as if it were a formal encyclopedia article, but write funny stuff in.
Images: 6 Some of them are good, some of them aren't quite top notch, to say the least.
Miscellaneous: 4 Get rid of that template at the top :)
Final Score: 29 A good start, but now it needs polishing, expanding, improving. On the face of it, your article doesn't strike me as awesome, but then again, few do at Uncyclopedia do. What you need to do now is really give it a good cleanup, lengthen it perhaps. But please don't get dragged down by my criticism - the concept's still got a lot of stuff in it!
Reviewer: --The Rt. Hon. BarryC Icons-flag-gb MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 11:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects