| Humour:
| 6
| Very crude humour, but I suppose that's the basis of the article. It would be great if there was a way to make this article still funny, but use the word "shit" way less often. It sort of "shits" all over everything else.
|
| Concept:
| 7
| An original concept, VERY original. Maybe it needs to be brought back into the real world a little bit, with less focus on the 16th century creation of the game with more text relating to something else. Expand the rules section, maybe, or add some statistics.
|
| Prose and formatting:
| 6
| Like I mentioned, the biggest problem with this article looking like a real encyclopedia article is the extreme vulgarity and obsenities. I, personally, can get past them, but others may not be so gratuitious. There are a few spelling and grammatical errors, but these are relatively minor, and could be (and should be) easily fixed. Also, there is a disturbing lack of links to any other articles. Please link to other articles by putting words in [[double brackets]]
|
| Images:
| 5
| I have mixed feelings here. The article has no images at all. On the other hand, maybe I don't want to know, given the nature of the article.
|
| Miscellaneous:
| 5
| This article still needs work, but in spite of it's crude nature, I think it has potential to be a full-fledged article. I'm not sure how some of the "regulars" (pronounced: ADMINS) will take to this article, but I think that with a little more effort, you can bring it up to Uncyclopedia standards, and hopefully continue contributing to Uncyclopedia.
|
| Final Score:
| 29
| Not long ago, I was in a similar situation, and nobody wants to get an article huffed; especially not their first one. Maybe with a little toning-down on the obsenities, and a little more adding to the structure and depth of this article, you might just end up with something great.
|
| Reviewer:
| Spillin Dylan 06:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
|
