Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Atlanta (resubmit)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Atlanta (Resubmit)

Here we go again with innovation!--Anakin 15:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Humour: 7 I got some mixed feelings here. Some of this humor is just spot on. The major joke of this article, innovation, is extremely Uncyclopedian and I find it hilarious. Very innovative. Well done. But at the same time, there's some very un-Uncyclopedian jokes here. Or rather, they're 'too Uncyclopedian. The number 1337 should NEVER appear in any serious article, which is what I see this as. The IQ joke under Downtown Connector was very close to being too stupid and unfunny to stay, but I liked what came right after it so I guess it can stay. Another thing that should NEVER appear in any serious article is a link to "your mom". That makes it sound very noobish. Overall, I guess what I'm trying to say with the humor in this article is to keep it consistent. About 70% of this article is pure gold, sounding very professional and witty. This is the sound to go for. If you purge this article of the nooby "your mom" jokes and references to 1337, then it'll be very featurable.
Concept: 9 You've done some great things with an article about a whole city, and an article about such an innovative city like Atlanta needs an equally innovative concept. You've got it, my friend. For the most part, I love this article. There's not really a better direction you could go, the only reason this isn't a 10 is because I have a hard time giving out 10s unless I'm really WOWed by an original concept. You get my 9 for going with the best and most innovative concept.
Prose and formatting: 8 Very nicely written. Once again, I'll just say that MOST of this article is written in a nice, professional tone with clever jokes. The formatting is good, everything is pretty clean and all. To get my 10 here, you'd just need to make your prose more consistent.
Images: 7 The images are good, they don't really strike me as humorous at all, however. Sure, they add to the article by giving us a nice reference as to what you're talking about, but let's face it. Most people (not necessarily most users) will click on a page and decide within the first 5 seconds whether or not they want to read it. If at first glance this looks JUST like a Wikipedia article, then they're gonna read just up until the first link out of there. The way that you capture the reader's interest is with images. Having more interesting images will make people want to read your article, which you worked hard on to make it the exceptional article that it is. The images need some improvement. They're good, they're just not interesting.
Miscellaneous: 7.8 Avg'd using {{Pee}}.
Final Score: 38.8 I like you. I've seen you around and you know what you're doing. You're a good writer, and I'm glad that you're using the Pee Review so that we can help you become a great writer. I look at this article and I see a potential feature. I feel confident that you'll make the changes you need to, and when you do I'll be the one to nominate this. 38.8 is a solid score. Drop me a line on meh talk page when you think you're ready for VFH, or if you want my help with anything. I'd be more than happy to. Nice article, keep this stuff up.
Reviewer: ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUNWotMRotMAotMVFHSKPEEINGHPBFF (@ 17:35 9 Feb, 2008)
Personal tools
projects