Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Fuck fucking fucked fucker fucking fuckups fuck fucking fucked fucking fuckup fucking fucker's fuck

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Fuck fucking fucked fucker fucking fuckups fuck fucking fucked fucking fuckup fucking fucker's fuck

ScottBurnan 21:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is under review by
Gerry Cheevers.

Sayeth Gerry: shotgun!!
Humour: 7 *intro: 6

okay, basically a rip-off of the wikipedia buffalo x 8 article, which is okay. i think you could come up with better substitutes than king john and the university of fucking, though. that being said, my attention is captured and i am fairly eager to see you prove this. just try to make the history a little more interesting/funny.

  • sentence construction: 8

this section is actually excellent. it could use quite a bit of work, but the humor is there. it's confusing as hell, which is great, and also makes sense once you read it enough. furthermore, it desensitizes the reader to use of the f-word, which should be noted at the end of the article. other changes i might suggest: use of a more versatile vocabulary. surely fucktard, fuckface, fuckmonkey, etc. should make an appearance (one of them once would do it). in 1, i would replace 'expression' with 'exclamation'. in 4, i would say 'unpleasant person'. the first use of 7 could be 'screw over' rather than 'literally have sex with', as another use of the word, bringing your total up to 11. also, in the last sentence, all use of 'fucking' is ignored; maybe throw in 'really' or 'rather' in their place.

Concept: 9 4/5 points for an obscure yet relevant subject worthy of parody.

5/5 points for execution. i read the title of this article expecting to hate it, but i loved the professional tone and encyclopedic feel! well done!

Prose and formatting: 7 your grammar and spelling were mostly fine, i'll give you a proofread to tidy up. the formatting was also just fine; a little choppy, but you really can't approcah this one any other way.
Images: 7 the first image is excellent. the wikipedia template is extremely necessary. the did you know is intersting; is it exactly 100 times? i suggest moving the did you know down to the see also section, and trying to come up with an idea for one more small picture below the wikipedia template. maybe an image of a buffalo with the simple caption of 'what the fuck?'
Miscellaneous: 7.5 fucking averaged
Final Score: 37.5 my preview button tells me that your score is 37.5, placing your article above the 'adequate' section and towards 'might be VFH'. i probably would nominate this once it's tidied; it's damn clever and different from the stuff that's usually nominated. just a few small tweaks, and maybe another image, and you've got at worst a great article, and at best a classic! if you need anything else, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. good luck!
Reviewer: SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools