Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Great Britain/Colonization

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Great Britain/Colonization

Another colonization. I haven't read it but they tell me it turned out ok. Are they lieing to me again? As always, PEEING member only please.

Colonizers are:



The Pope


MrN - Just join IC already!

Joe mama


The techno rabbi

Sonje - Thanks for the images, even if we only used one.


Some asshole

Thankees in advance! -OptyC Sucks! Icons-flag-us CUN16:28, 11 Apr

Uhh, just to throw it out there, I really didn't do anything. I added about 2 sentences and an Eddy Izzard joke, so I don't really feel like a colonizer. Yeah. Saberwolf116 03:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, um, this is on VFH already, and, um, yeah. I mean, I'll still review it, but still. —Sir Guildensternenstein 04:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Humour: 9 Every single British thing ever, and yet it doesn't feel or get tired. Nice.
Concept: 10 Britain is a real place.
Prose and formatting: 9 No mistakes as far as spelling and grammar are concerned.
Images: 10 Rocket launcher sheep!
Miscellaneous: 10 Average-ish.
Final Score: 48 Fucking great.
Reviewer: Sir Guildensternenstein 05:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if this wasn't exactly an "in-depth" review, but a) it's already on VFH, and b) there's really not anything to improve upon. —Sir Guildensternenstein 05:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks, though next time I feel you should actually read the article before skimming it and checking off 9's for spelling and grammar. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 06:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't bother changing anything though, I just went through all of the article's prose and corrected as many of the dozens of egregious grammatical and punctuational errors that I could find. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 06:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I did read the article. Although, to be fair, proofreading isn't exactly my strongest point. Unless something is utterly and blatantly wrong, I'll likely miss it. In any event, it's a good article. —Sir Guildensternenstein 22:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Yikes, just looked at the page history, and there were a lot of comma-semicolon mix-ups, among other things. My bad. Although that doesn't really bode well for the half-dozen people who wrote the article and the dozen people who read it before I did that nominated it for front page, either. In any event, it's still a fucking good article, so whatever. —Sir Guildensternenstein 22:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools