Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Backmasking

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Backmasking

by Sir Roger 05:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Humour: 6 I think this article has some brilliant nuggets, and I suprised myself when I actually giggled at an uncyclopedia article that wasn't on the front page. However, it tends to run out of steam worryingly rapidly, before breaking down into a despondent pit of repeating the same old gags, any comedian's worst nightmare.
Concept: 4 As a concept, I think it's quite poor. It starts off well, but soon slips up on the middle section. It lacks dynamicism, pace or punch much further on than the second paragraph. You need to sort out what is going on in the article.
Prose and formatting: 2 This is one of the worst structured articles I have seen on Pee Review, and I mean that wholeheartedly. I cannot stress the importance of a good looking article enough - I, for one, until I saw your good gags in the first paragraph, was about to dismiss it out of hand, and write this pee review in a mercilessly critical manner.
Images: 2 I fail to see any connection between your chosen images and the text.
Miscellaneous: 5 SPG is average, and red links are awash all around.
Final Score: 19 This article looks like a pile of dogs droppings, and, in all honesty, becomes one. However, its saving grace is the glinting golden nugget, that sticks strategically out at the top of the page - if that was intentional, well done. However, if you want this article to progress, you're going to have to cut the crap and refine the gems that do lie buried beneath the muck.
Reviewer: --The Rt. Hon. BarryC Icons-flag-gb MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 23:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools