Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Cingular

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 22:19, September 8, 2009 by Methamphetamine! (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Cingular

I hope this article is up to the standards of Uncyclopedia. It's the first one I've ever made, so I know there's plenty of room to improve it. Thanks for reviewing it --Scouto2 21:42, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

I never mentioned reviewing it. METHAMPHETAMINE! ZOMG HOLY SHIT (21:26 09-8-2009)
Hi!
I, Methamphetamine, am here to pee on your article. If you can, please let me pee. Thank you, and good night.
Humour: 1 Style of breakdown: Summary

I am not sure whether or not this was supposed to be funny or not. In fact, I'm only around 40% in to the article and I am still not sure about whether or not this was supposed to be either funny or just... weird. If you just wanted it to be weird then you're doing a good job, but should move on to smaller and worse things, like writing on Deviant Art. As I continue reading on the story I see that you do not realize that you have to be funny and not just stupid. To be stupid is to be Illogicopedia, to be funny AND stupid is Uncyclopedia. The fun facts at the end of the article I am currently read it make it seem that you just gave up at the end and decided to tread on familiar ground by adding conspiracy, but it has been raped to the Point Of Know Return. Also, something I figured out about 20 minutes into writing the review, your comedy linking consists of unfunny memes, and that's just really stupid.

Final Score: 1

Concept: 1 Style: Gerrycheevers

0.5/5 for actual concept Digging up something that's been dead since a year before the creation of this website makes absolutely no sense at all, because it will be so outdated that only 3 people will look at this and think, "Wow. This guy's concept was spot on." 0.5/5 for execution How you executed this is shown in the Humour section. .5 + .5 = 1

Prose and formatting: 7 The spelling is fine, however the red links scattered throughout the page makes only 3D glasses look good. Another thing is that you never use italics, bolds, or even italic bolds. Italics are good at emphasizing sarcasm, bolds are good at emphasizing, and italic bolds are good for eye candy once every 1000 or so words.
Images: 1 There is one image there, with no caption in it at all. I believe this was supposed to describe a black hole, but it seems the picture was just shoved in there at the last minute so that you wouldn't get a 0 on this section of the review. Adding a caption, err, adding a funny caption pleases the eyes and the visual palate of the person reading your article. Throwing in a picture randomly for the sake of trying to illustrate something like a black for isn't.
Miscellaneous: 2.5 The Magic of the Pee template!
Final Score: 12.5 12.5? No wonder it's up for ICU. My suggestion is to move it to the nearest userpage (yours), rewrite it, and work on it there. When you think it's the best that you can do, send it up for a 2nd opinion. For now, the mainspace is much to evil for you. This is Methamphetamine, signing off.

P.S. If you have any concerns or complaints about this review, leave a message on my talk page and I'll be gladder than gladder than glad to respond.

Reviewer: METHAMPHETAMINE! ZOMG HOLY SHIT (22:19 09-8-2009)
Personal tools
projects