Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Bunny Shark
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
184.108.40.206 16:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is this a serious demand for a review? I've seen predictions made by Nostradamus less random than this stublike article. If it's a serious request for help and constructiv comments I hope you get it but otherwise I would almost go as far as to flag this for VFD. No offense and I don't mean to sound harsh but its really random and is quite low on content. Pls let me know. --Kit talk 18:08 22 March
|This article is under review by|
Sayeth Gerry: shotgun!!
|Humour:||1||well you've fallen into the trap of a really, really random article. you seem to have made up an animal and given it bizarre and nonsensical characteristics, such as eating carrots that grow in pink water. the article confuses the reader more than anything else, and it lacks in humor quite a bit. if you're going to insist on hving an article on this 'bunny shark', then try to take a more serious tone and describe it as if it were an actual animal.|
|Concept:||1||1/5 points for a made up thing that doesn't lend itself to parody.
0/5 points for execution. you really don't have a clear direction, theme, or purpose. if you were going to be encyclopedic or have some other recurring elements, then that's good. take a look at Bear for some ideas. but the random nonsense here is really not what we're looking for from acceptable articles at uncyclopedia.
|Prose and formatting:||4||you have no links. your grammar and spelling weren't terrible, but they weren't great. overall this was short and wandering.|
|Images:||3||only the one image...and it's very weird and disturbing, i don't know why.|
|Miscellaneous:||2.3||averaged via magic|
|Final Score:||11.3||your final score is 11.3. this isn't an acceptable article on uncyc, and will likely fall victim to a hungry admin's delete button within a week, especially since you are an IP and your last edit was creating this pee review page. nevertheless, i retain some slim ray of hope that you will return and begin anew on this article (hey, i'm an optimist). i suggest coming up with some believeable fake details about this...thing, and giving your article an encyclopedic tone. good luck.|
|Reviewer:||21:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)|