Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Elevator

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 06:44, April 27, 2011 by Fnoodle (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit Elevator

Hello! I hope you'll review this. I just did a major rewrite of this previously garbage article and I'm looking for a second opinion. You know, the basic stuff, is it funny, will it do good on VFH, i can haz nomination maybe if it's that good? You know, those questions. Thanks bunches. Necropaxx (T) {~} 17:28, Jan 22

Humour: 6 Very imaginative and detailed. Basically its good and had me smiling most of the time but never really laughing. I guess it lacks those small and prompt jokes that makes one laugh unexpectedly. On the other hand those are the hardest to think of though. Your quote is a great example of what you should have more of in my opinion; it really had me laugh.
Concept: 8 Great concept in my opinion. Been thinking about different concepts to describe elevators in a funny way and htink I would have gone the same way as you. You have consistency throughout the article with your idea and writing style. You keep to the subject and yet have a very descriptive way of telling stuff which makes the article almost a bit to believable. Luckily the facts are so obvious it stays quite clear this is all a big farce - which its supposed to be!
Prose and formatting: 7 I didn't get stuck on any sentence thinking it was weirdly formulated. I also havent found any spelling error yet. As formentioned I especially appreciate the depth you give each parafrag with so many details. It makes for an easyread text. Why you didn't get better than 7 though is that the formatting feels a bit "boring". The paragrafs feel a bit too much like big blocks of text which kind of scare the reader away. Maybe try using more sub sections or formatting to give the article more space and "air". Some work with your images wouldnt hurt which brings me to the next point.
Images: 5 Because you do have images and they arent too bad you could stick with those you have. But except for the first and third pictures, the others feel a bit boring. Also the exploding head gif is really outdated and used. It works in context but if you can find another one it would be even better. Try adding one ore two more pictures to lighten up the article a bit more as well. Don't be afraid to let them take more space.
Miscellaneous: 6 Good thing people like you roam the site turning crappy articles into good less crappy articles ;)
Final Score: 32 I thinks this makes for quite a good score which reflects my general opinion. But remember I still pointed out stuff that could be improved so don't ride away on your high horse. Otherwise.. yeh, i might just go and nominate for VFH cause I liked it =)
Reviewer: --kit 10:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects