Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Bilton Mabbitt

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Done)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
===[[Milton Babbitt]]===
 
===[[Milton Babbitt]]===
 
Shabidoo reviewed the main page, this time I'd like reviews of the talk and the hidden rewrite that Milton doesn't care whether you read or not, too. Thank ya kindly! --{{User:Thekillerfroggy/sig}} 00:36, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
 
Shabidoo reviewed the main page, this time I'd like reviews of the talk and the hidden rewrite that Milton doesn't care whether you read or not, too. Thank ya kindly! --{{User:Thekillerfroggy/sig}} 00:36, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
:I'll take this one! {{User:GEORGIEGIBBONS/sig}} 10:10, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
+
:Georgie did a fine positive review of this, but I'm still looking for something in-depth. Like, really in-depth. Like dig your stilettos into there deep. --{{User:Thekillerfroggy/sig}} 20:45, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
  +
::If this in-depth review is proving elusive it can only be due to the quality of the article(s). All three of the pages are probably featureable in my opinion (although the main one might face some difficulty on VFH). I would happily nominate the "tasteful rewrite" myself. With this in mind, would you still want a review? --{{User:Black flamingo11/sig}} 20:53, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
  +
:::If you think it's that good, then go ahead and nominate it, that's great. But I'm also looking for a big-picture review of how each article does in relation to each other, and stuff, you know? Yeah. --{{User:Thekillerfroggy/sig}} 23:41, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
 
{{Pee Review Table
 
{{Pee Review Table
|Hscore=7
+
|Hscore=10
|Hcomment=The rewrite isn't as good as the original version but there are still some funny moments and the same goes for the talk page. I found the "wtf is this" guy to be quite amusing as he fails to understand the point of the article. For the rewrite, I would try to add a few more jokes and maybe some quotes to maintain the humour of the article. But overall, not bad.
+
|Hcomment=I laughed so hard that I puked. Thanks, now I have to clean up my puke!!
 
|Cscore=8
 
|Cscore=8
|Ccomment=The talk page is...just a talk page with added humour and that's fine. The rewrite appears to be encyclopedic yet it is still pretty funny. While it is different to the normal version, it still comes out pretty well in the concept department.
+
|Ccomment=It definitely has a concept. Good job!
|Pscore=10
+
|Pscore=6
|Pcomment=The spelling and grammar is steller, so no complaints there. All of the images suit their purpose for the article on both the rewrite and the talk page. Overall, no complaints for prose and formatting.
+
|Pcomment=I have raised this score from what I would have actually put, because I assume that the terrible prose and formatting are part of the concept.
|Iscore=10
+
|Iscore=6
|Icomment=Like I mentioned above, they suit their purpose pretty well for the article and even though you could add a bit more humour into the images, they are fine as they are.
+
|Icomment=Could really use more pictures. Perhaps a picture of Milton Babbitt? That's a good idea, feel free to use it.
|Mscore=8
+
|Mscore=10
|Mcomment=My overall grade of the article.
+
|Mcomment=I liked the length of the article. Not too long, but just long enough that I didn't read it.
|Fcomment=While the humour does need to be built on a little bit, the majority of the rewrite and the talk page are done pretty well and they are both looking very promising. It isn't a n00b-ish effort so you don't need to go back to the books here but I would just slightly build on the humour. Overall, a good article! Good luck with any improvements you may wish to make!
+
|Fcomment=You're welcome.
|Signature={{User:GEORGIEGIBBONS/sig}} 10:25, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
+
|Signature=-- {{User:Zombiebaron/sig}} 05:38, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 
}}
 
}}
+
That is the best review a boy could have ever hoped for. --{{User:Thekillerfroggy/sig}} 09:46, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 
[[Category:Pee Review]]
 
[[Category:Pee Review]]

Latest revision as of 09:46, April 12, 2011

FAQ

edit Milton Babbitt

Shabidoo reviewed the main page, this time I'd like reviews of the talk and the hidden rewrite that Milton doesn't care whether you read or not, too. Thank ya kindly! --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 00:36, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Georgie did a fine positive review of this, but I'm still looking for something in-depth. Like, really in-depth. Like dig your stilettos into there deep. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 20:45, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
If this in-depth review is proving elusive it can only be due to the quality of the article(s). All three of the pages are probably featureable in my opinion (although the main one might face some difficulty on VFH). I would happily nominate the "tasteful rewrite" myself. With this in mind, would you still want a review? --Black Flamingo 20:53, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
If you think it's that good, then go ahead and nominate it, that's great. But I'm also looking for a big-picture review of how each article does in relation to each other, and stuff, you know? Yeah. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 23:41, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
Humour: 10 I laughed so hard that I puked. Thanks, now I have to clean up my puke!!
Concept: 8 It definitely has a concept. Good job!
Prose and formatting: 6 I have raised this score from what I would have actually put, because I assume that the terrible prose and formatting are part of the concept.
Images: 6 Could really use more pictures. Perhaps a picture of Milton Babbitt? That's a good idea, feel free to use it.
Miscellaneous: 10 I liked the length of the article. Not too long, but just long enough that I didn't read it.
Final Score: 40 You're welcome.
Reviewer: -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 05:38, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

That is the best review a boy could have ever hoped for. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 09:46, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Personal tools
projects