Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Guidelines

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Replaced page with 'Please troll us we begging for it [[Don't troll us pre review guidelines and stuff funny jokes JchshjhdhxgshrgdhdchchgxgcycudjdfjfugitjgjtjdjejJchshjhdhxgshrgd...')
m (Reverted edit(s) of 66.87.103.123 (talk) to last version by Big Brother Lee)
Line 1: Line 1:
Please troll us we begging for it
+
{{shortcut|[[UN:PRG]]<br />[[PRG]]}}
  +
{{Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Menu}}
  +
{{TOCleft}}
  +
[[Why?:Do a Pee Review|Pee Review]] is a mechanism for requesting and offering help on articles written in the Uncyc community. '''[[Pee Review]]''' is a valuable resource for getting constructive feedback on your article. Since it's such a useful tool, it has massive potential for abuse. Don't be the guy everyone has to dislike for fucking with it. Basically, '''don't be mean or stupid''', and try to keep everything in perspective--all humor is subjective, so who knows who'll like what? Don't take offense, and don't be offensive, and remember that it's all for the good of your article.
   
[[Don't troll us pre review guidelines and stuff funny jokes
+
[[Image:ThinkerToilet.jpg|thumb|180px|Who's [[this guy]] sitting on the crapper?]]
JchshjhdhxgshrgdhdchchgxgcycudjdfjfugitjgjtjdjejJchshjhdhxgshrgdhdchchgxgcycudjdfjfugitjgjtjdjejjrrjrjididjddjxhgxgdhuj,uxhdjxjdrhhhdhfhffhfjfjfhggjggjgjfjfjfjffjfjxkskskskskdkdjdjdfjfhhchhrhdujcbsbhrujchzhchejjrhjjjcjdujjjuufhduhtUuutjurujjjiSKIIfiujjjjjjhhahhjjfJjrrjrjid
+
==Submitting to Pee Review==
  +
Before you submit your page, make sure you have a page first. Put in some actual effort before a review--the reviewers aren't here to write your page for you, just to give you some improvement tips. Create your review page using that handy box on the pee review main page, and type out anything you think the reviewer should know about the page, or any specific things you'd like them to look at for you. Hit save page, and be ready to wait. It could be a day or it could be three weeks before your page is reviewed. To move things along, do a review for someone else--this decreases the size of the queue, increasing your page's odds of being reviewed.
  +
  +
Once you get a review, be open to criticism. If you don't want to hear that your page isn't perfect, don't submit it. Take criticism seriously and be ready to do some work on your page. You want it to be good, right? If your review was particularly helpful, the {{tl|Golden Shower Award}} is always much appreciated. If you get a lousy review, just request another one on a new page or revert it ('''only''' if it's really crappy). Be wary, though, that you might be insulting someone by saying that their reviewmanship needs work. If you ''don't'' appreciate the review you just got, ''don't'' take it to the reviewer's talk page and start a flamewar - ask an [[UN:AA|admin]] to look at the situation ({{u|ChiefjusticeDS}} and {{u|Under user|UU}} are always willing to help with review matters).
  +
  +
Once you've worked on everything the reviewer mentioned or want a second opinion, create a new pee review entry and put "(resubmit)" after your article's title.
  +
  +
==[[HowTo:Insult Someone|Doing a Review]]==
  +
Just like [[masturbation|writing articles]], people have different styles of reviewing and there is no 'right or wrong' way. If you put some effort in, and give useful advice your contribution will be very welcome.
  +
  +
Writing a genuinely helpful Pee Review is not an easy task. Just like writing good articles, doing a good Pee Review takes time and effort. No one will be too grateful if you just give a score for each category but do not explain why you gave it.
  +
<br clear="all"/>
  +
===The Basics===
  +
[[Image:Urinating_fountain.jpg|Right|thumb|180px|Try to keep piss in the pond]]
  +
[[UN:R|Don't be a dick]]. Writing is tricky, and it's easy to shoot some new user down. Don't make the writers feel like crap. Feeling like crap sucks - instead, try to be encouraging, even if you think the article sucks. Don't make the review about the author, either. You're not reviewing "UncycUser66's" merit as a noob, you're reviewing the page they wrote. Point noobs towards [[HTBFANJS]] and [[UN:BEST]], and always ''try'' to find something positive to say about their article, however much of a stretch it may be - harsh medicine is easier to take with sugar.
  +
  +
The pee review categories work like this:
  +
  +
{{Pee Review Table
  +
|Hscore=7
  +
|Hcomment= ''Probably the most important, article-wise. How funny is it? Why is it funny? How can it be funnier? Suggestions for improvement and highlights of specific problems are very helpful.
  +
|Cscore=9
  +
|Ccomment= ''How good an idea is behind the article? Is it original with lots of potential? Could the concept be expanded and in what way?
  +
|Pscore=8
  +
|Pcomment= ''The writing style, spelling, grammar, layout and overall appearance. Is it written in an encyclopedic style? If not, are there good reasons for this? Does the voice ''work?''
  +
|Iscore=5
  +
|Icomment= ''How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting? If the writer has no photochopping skills, encourage the use of captions to make normal images funny.
  +
|Mscore= {{pee|7|9|8|5}}
  +
|Mcomment= ''Either use [[Template:Pee]] to workout an average for you ('''<nowiki>{{pee|7|9|8|5}}</nowiki>''' in this case), or give a score to compensate for the article's overall quality--something that can't always be assessed by the previous numbers alone.
  +
|Fcomment= ''Overall summation. How much can it be improved and what are the most important areas to work on. ''Try'' to sign off with an encouraging comment - it ''can'' help to avoid drama and encourage the author to make improvements.
  +
|Signature=Please sign using the normal <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>}}
  +
  +
Your score for each category should be considered independently of the others. If the article is riddled with spelling mistakes and terrible pictures, but still made you wet you pants laughing, it still gets a 10 for humour. Likewise if it's a brilliant idea, but has not been well exploited you should give a high score for concept. It is absolutely necessary to add comments based on your score, to tell the author why you scored it that way, as well as to give the author advice to improve the article.
  +
  +
Scoring works like so:
  +
  +
*[10]<font color="white">==</font>Brilliant. No mistakes. ('''50''' holy crap, I wet my pants!).
  +
*[9]<font color="white">===</font>Way above average: probably [[uncyclopedia:Best of|VFH]] ('''45''')
  +
*[8]<font color="white">===</font>More than adequate: ''might'' be [[uncyclopedia:Best of|VFH]] ('''40''')
  +
*<big>'''[7]'''<font color="white">===</font>'''Adequate''', the average article</big> ('''35''')
  +
*[6]<font color="white">===</font>Nearly adequate ('''30''')
  +
*[5]<font color="white">===</font>Inadequate. Might be [[:category:rewrite|Rewrite]]. ('''25''')
  +
*[4]<font color="white">===</font>Might be [[uncyclopedia:VFD|VFD]]/[[:category:NRV|NRV]]/[[:category:rewrite|Rewrite]] ('''20''')
  +
*[3]<font color="white">===</font>Probably [[uncyclopedia:VFD|VFD]]/[[:category:NRV|NRV]] ('''15''')
  +
*[2]<font color="white">===</font>Probably [[uncyclopedia:VFD|VFD]]/[[QVFD]] ('''10''')
  +
*[1]<font color="white">===</font>Probably [[QVFD]] ('''5''')
  +
*[0]<font color="white">===</font>Doesn't exist, no attempt. Reserved for the Iscore of articles without pictures ONLY.
  +
  +
It is obviously very difficult to judge what 'adequate' is as what one reviewer may consider average will be different than another. When starting to review for the first time consider taking a look at some reviews which have been already been done and try to find what appears to be a consensus between them. Over time, as you become more experienced you will become better at giving scores. When in doubt, give an average score.
  +
  +
Remember that what is written in the comments section is far more useful than the actual scores you give, but be aware that most users take the score seriously simply because they are the most objective part of the review.
  +
  +
===Intermediate Reviewing===
  +
[[Image:BadPeeReview.jpg|thumb|right|350px|This is an example of a '''bad''' Pee review, and not just because [[User:One-eyed Jack|OEJ]] didn't write it.]]
  +
Once you have the basics it's time to consider some more subtle issues.
  +
====Be Specific====
  +
Try to give examples of what exactly it is that's troubling you, whether it be content, grammar or whatever.
  +
  +
====Grammar and Spelling====
  +
If you see glaring errors in grammar and spelling, try to not be too critical of them. Writing is difficult and requires practice. Give a rough outline of the problems. If you can't find a pattern in their mistakes, tell them to read the article out loud to themselves. Usually, that's enough to catch many errors. You can always fix some of the errors yourself if you wish to, or add the '''<nowiki>{{proofread}}</nowiki>''' template to get someone else to do it. For more specifics, see the section "[[Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Guidelines#Subtleties|subtleties]]".
  +
  +
====Give Alternatives/Ideas====
  +
Discourage the use of lists and excessive randomness--unless, of course, the lists or randomness are funny. Instead of just saying that something sucks, '''it's ''much'' better to give useful alternatives or suggestions''' which could make things better. Two heads are better than one, and the author may be looking for some fresh ideas.
  +
#History: Did they explain the history of the thing they're talking about?
  +
#People: Did they talk about important people involved?
  +
#Applications: Did they talk about how the article relates/doesn't relate to the reader's life?
  +
#Usage: How is it used?
  +
#What if?: What if the average person tried doing this?
  +
#Why?: Why does the average person care about this?
  +
[[Image:Oscar.jpg|thumb|right|200px|<code>{{Q|Hello, I'm Oscar Wilde. Why are you killing my soul?|Oscar Wilde|why you are killing his soul}}</code>]]
  +
  +
====Discourage In-Jokes====
  +
:''See [[:Category:Uncyclopedia In-Jokes]]''
  +
[[Uncyclopedia]] has many in-jokes that are often intolerable in many articles. You should know them, and discourage their use. The most common ones are quotes from Oscar Wilde, Russian Reversal, and Chuck Norris, as well as references to [[Kitten Huffing]]. If you see one of these jokes, make sure that it is suitable in the context. For example, [[Oscar Wilde]] was a [[homeless|brilliant]], [[sexy|insightful]] [[Faggot|man]], so if someone is using a [[Wilde]] quote, make sure that it's something which he might actually have said.
  +
  +
====Formatting====
  +
Is the article '[[Ugliness|ugly]]'? If so, in what way is it ugly? Does it have large blocks of unbroken text or eleven paragraphs in a row that are one sentence long? It may have too many pictures, or too few pictures, or very few links to other articles.
  +
  +
It might be evident that the [[prostitute|author]] of the [[crap|article]] was not aware of some basic formatting skills which make articles look nice. If you think this is the case, consider [[Please delete this page|formatting a small section]] of the article to show them how to do it.
  +
  +
How many sentences in the article are between 10 and 20 words long and consist of two or more clauses separated by a comma? How many are less than 5 words long? If most sentences in a piece have the same general length and structure, then the piece often feels dull. Very short sentences can be a delightful seasoning in prose, and short sentences are often strong. They have impact.
  +
  +
====Pictures====
  +
If you feel that the number of [[porn|pictures]] is fine, comment on the pictures themselves. Very rarely are pictures themselves the problem unless they don't match the article itself, or are there for no reason. Occasionally, you may see completely unacceptable pictures, but this is very rare... ''damn noobs don't know how to upload images!'' Except in special circumstances, there should not be a [[myspace|picturespam gallery]] ('''<code><nowiki><gallery></nowiki></code>'''). Make sure that most pictures are thumbs of an appropriate size, with a humorous caption.
  +
  +
===Advanced Reviewing===
  +
[[Image:UnNews New thing called wheel make move mud less hard.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Advanced reviewing good. Moon God pleased.]]
  +
When you have considered the above you might increase the usefulness of your review by commenting on the following.
  +
====Concept====
  +
This is the hardest part of Pee Review to score. Here are a few tips:
  +
# Many different unrelated ideas jumbled into one article is generally not a good thing. It's best if there is one core idea behind it.
  +
# Don't score on how funny it ''could possibly'' be. The fact that [[Jerry Seinfeld]] could make it brilliant is not important. Jerry's not here, and if you have to give a "potential" score for that article, make sure it's for that writer based on the rest of the article.
  +
# Are you jealous of the idea? If so give concept a high score.
  +
  +
====Tone====
  +
Is the article written in a tone of voice appropriate to the context? Is it too angry, too passive or too boring for the concept? If so, let them know.
  +
[[Image:Worlds first hard drive.jpg|thumb|right|250px|The reviewertron is running at full capacity!!!11!eleven]]
  +
What style is the article written in, and has the author made it work?
  +
#Sarcasm: A sarcastic person over the interweb is difficult to distinguish from a complete idiot. For sarcasm to work it usually has to be way over the top, unless it's obvious.
  +
#Deadpan: Ever seen ''Superbad'' or ''Arrested Development''? That's what deadpan humor "is". For it to work over the internet, it has to be somewhat out of the norm because the internet doesn't carry facial expressions or the tone of voice (yet).
  +
#Parody: Parody is very difficult to pull off. The reader has to know the actual subject matter, then notice that it's parody as well as find it funny. Is it likely that most readers will be able to do this with the article in question?
  +
  +
====Person====
  +
Does the article switch from first to second person without explanation? Is it disconcerting for some reason? At this point, bring to bear the article's direction. Who is it talking to or about? Is it [[Breaking the fifth wall|breaking the fourth wall]] too much, or unexpectedly? This part of reviewing takes a lot of stamina.
  +
  +
====Subtleties====
  +
If a joke falls flat not because of its poor grammar and not because the joke isn't inherently funny, then something else way more complicated is going on. Usually, these type of errors are found in specific sentences, so they're easier to fix than tone and person. Look for these problems:
  +
#Punctuation Matters: If a comma is in the wrong place, or if there are too many, the flow of the joke can be messed up. Commas should be used to separate 3 or more items, not 2.
  +
#Emphasis (Italicization/Bolds): Emphasis should be used sparingly, but it should probably be used once in most articles. If a joke has an exclamation point at the end, the joke is usually ruined (unless it's absolutely hilarious). Same with italicize and bold.
  +
#Starting a sentence with descriptive clauses prior to introducing the subject is usually not appropriate. "Hasbro, the childrens' toy company" is better than "the childrens' toy company, Hasbro".
  +
#Blocks of text are not wanted. Make sure that there are appropriate breaks for the reader, and that each paragraph focuses on a single general topic.
  +
  +
===An Example Pee===
  +
Below shows a well done pee. Note that the reviewer has given genuinely useful advice as well as pointing out problems.
  +
  +
{{Pee Review Table
  +
|Hscore=7
  +
|Hcomment=Pretty funny, but I think it could be even better, if you work on it. I ''highly'' recommend [[HTBFANJS]], I read it every time I write something, and it really is great for ideas and tricks to get a quick laugh. Also, make sure that whatever you intend to be funny is very clear. For example, in this line: "wearing nothing but a shirt, tie, shoes, socks, underpants and a three-piece suit", I ''think'' you're trying to insinuate that Darwin was wearing no pants, right? If so, make sure that it's very clear; the sentence you have there is somewhat confusing. Other than that, really think about what you want to be funny. Make sure that everything you write has some intent, and try to know ''why'' something you write is funny, so that you can be sure that it is.
  +
|Cscore=8
  +
|Ccomment=I find myself enjoying this concept very much. It has a lot of potential for satirical humor, but I think you could exploit this a little better. Personally, I'd like to hear more about how Darwin is "the second-coming of the atheist messiah". It just felt to me like you got off a track a little bit. Try to really have an idea of a direction you want a page to go in, otherwise you run a risk of becoming a little bit irrelevant.
  +
|Pscore=6.5
  +
|Pcomment=Mostly ok prose, but could be better in a few places. For example, look at this sentence: "Akin to claims of arrests being made to question people." That's a fragment, and I'm unsure as to what you mean by it. Remember that writing comedy has to be spot on--if you've ever told a joke or watched a stand-up comic, you know that comedic timing and delivery are everything. Writing humor is exactly the same, but harder, so don't be afraid to use plenty of commas, '''boldness''', and ''italics'' to get your delivery to the point where it can only be uninterpreted one way--the way that you want it to be interpreted.
  +
  +
Formatting is good, although you may want to ''italicize'' your ''"quotes"''.
  +
|Iscore=7
  +
|Icomment=Your images, though relevant, could be much funnier. Don't be afraid to use the captions to insert a joke, they're great for one-liners.
  +
|Mscore={{Pee|7|8|6.5|7}}
  +
|Mcomment=Avg'd your score, via {{Tl|Pee}}: '''<nowiki>{{Pee|7|8|6.5|7}}</nowiki>'''
  +
|Fcomment=Basically, the page is solid and stands on its own, but with a little more tuning up, a little pruning (don't be afraid to delete stuff from your own page), it could become a prime Uncyclopedia UnNews. Just read through it slowly, with a critical eye, and try to fix everything. Good luck.
  +
|Signature=- ''SomeGuyWithNoLedInHisPencil'' <small><small>01:01, April 1</small></small>
  +
}}
  +
  +
==Conclusion==
  +
It is (of course) up to you to decide how to go about doing your Pee Reviews and all of the above should be considered [[rules|guidelines]] and, like Wikipedia guidelines, can be ignored if they get in the way of good reviewing. So long as your intentions are good and you put a reasonable amount of effort into the process the [[whore|submitter]] will be grateful. Users will probably find your reviews the most useful when you offer alternative suggestions for how things might be done rather than just highlighting mistakes.
  +
  +
Thank you for reading this guide. Now what the hell are you still doing here? [[Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Current Pees|Go and review something]] you lazy bugger!
  +
  +
[[Category:Uncyclopedia]]

Revision as of 03:15, October 17, 2012

Guidelines

FAQ

Pee Review is a mechanism for requesting and offering help on articles written in the Uncyc community. Pee Review is a valuable resource for getting constructive feedback on your article. Since it's such a useful tool, it has massive potential for abuse. Don't be the guy everyone has to dislike for fucking with it. Basically, don't be mean or stupid, and try to keep everything in perspective--all humor is subjective, so who knows who'll like what? Don't take offense, and don't be offensive, and remember that it's all for the good of your article.

ThinkerToilet

Who's this guy sitting on the crapper?

Submitting to Pee Review

Before you submit your page, make sure you have a page first. Put in some actual effort before a review--the reviewers aren't here to write your page for you, just to give you some improvement tips. Create your review page using that handy box on the pee review main page, and type out anything you think the reviewer should know about the page, or any specific things you'd like them to look at for you. Hit save page, and be ready to wait. It could be a day or it could be three weeks before your page is reviewed. To move things along, do a review for someone else--this decreases the size of the queue, increasing your page's odds of being reviewed.

Once you get a review, be open to criticism. If you don't want to hear that your page isn't perfect, don't submit it. Take criticism seriously and be ready to do some work on your page. You want it to be good, right? If your review was particularly helpful, the {{Golden Shower Award}} is always much appreciated. If you get a lousy review, just request another one on a new page or revert it (only if it's really crappy). Be wary, though, that you might be insulting someone by saying that their reviewmanship needs work. If you don't appreciate the review you just got, don't take it to the reviewer's talk page and start a flamewar - ask an admin to look at the situation (ChiefjusticeDS and UU are always willing to help with review matters).

Once you've worked on everything the reviewer mentioned or want a second opinion, create a new pee review entry and put "(resubmit)" after your article's title.

Doing a Review

Just like writing articles, people have different styles of reviewing and there is no 'right or wrong' way. If you put some effort in, and give useful advice your contribution will be very welcome.

Writing a genuinely helpful Pee Review is not an easy task. Just like writing good articles, doing a good Pee Review takes time and effort. No one will be too grateful if you just give a score for each category but do not explain why you gave it.

The Basics

Urinating fountain

Try to keep piss in the pond

Don't be a dick. Writing is tricky, and it's easy to shoot some new user down. Don't make the writers feel like crap. Feeling like crap sucks - instead, try to be encouraging, even if you think the article sucks. Don't make the review about the author, either. You're not reviewing "UncycUser66's" merit as a noob, you're reviewing the page they wrote. Point noobs towards HTBFANJS and UN:BEST, and always try to find something positive to say about their article, however much of a stretch it may be - harsh medicine is easier to take with sugar.

The pee review categories work like this:

Humour: 7 Probably the most important, article-wise. How funny is it? Why is it funny? How can it be funnier? Suggestions for improvement and highlights of specific problems are very helpful.
Concept: 9 How good an idea is behind the article? Is it original with lots of potential? Could the concept be expanded and in what way?
Prose and formatting: 8 The writing style, spelling, grammar, layout and overall appearance. Is it written in an encyclopedic style? If not, are there good reasons for this? Does the voice work?
Images: 5 How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting? If the writer has no photochopping skills, encourage the use of captions to make normal images funny.
Miscellaneous: 7.3 Either use Template:Pee to workout an average for you ({{pee|7|9|8|5}} in this case), or give a score to compensate for the article's overall quality--something that can't always be assessed by the previous numbers alone.
Final Score: 36.3 Overall summation. How much can it be improved and what are the most important areas to work on. Try to sign off with an encouraging comment - it can help to avoid drama and encourage the author to make improvements.
Reviewer: Please sign using the normal ~~~~


Your score for each category should be considered independently of the others. If the article is riddled with spelling mistakes and terrible pictures, but still made you wet you pants laughing, it still gets a 10 for humour. Likewise if it's a brilliant idea, but has not been well exploited you should give a high score for concept. It is absolutely necessary to add comments based on your score, to tell the author why you scored it that way, as well as to give the author advice to improve the article.

Scoring works like so:

  • [10]==Brilliant. No mistakes. (50 holy crap, I wet my pants!).
  • [9]===Way above average: probably VFH (45)
  • [8]===More than adequate: might be VFH (40)
  • [7]===Adequate, the average article (35)
  • [6]===Nearly adequate (30)
  • [5]===Inadequate. Might be Rewrite. (25)
  • [4]===Might be VFD/NRV/Rewrite (20)
  • [3]===Probably VFD/NRV (15)
  • [2]===Probably VFD/QVFD (10)
  • [1]===Probably QVFD (5)
  • [0]===Doesn't exist, no attempt. Reserved for the Iscore of articles without pictures ONLY.

It is obviously very difficult to judge what 'adequate' is as what one reviewer may consider average will be different than another. When starting to review for the first time consider taking a look at some reviews which have been already been done and try to find what appears to be a consensus between them. Over time, as you become more experienced you will become better at giving scores. When in doubt, give an average score.

Remember that what is written in the comments section is far more useful than the actual scores you give, but be aware that most users take the score seriously simply because they are the most objective part of the review.

Intermediate Reviewing

BadPeeReview

This is an example of a bad Pee review, and not just because OEJ didn't write it.

Once you have the basics it's time to consider some more subtle issues.

Be Specific

Try to give examples of what exactly it is that's troubling you, whether it be content, grammar or whatever.

Grammar and Spelling

If you see glaring errors in grammar and spelling, try to not be too critical of them. Writing is difficult and requires practice. Give a rough outline of the problems. If you can't find a pattern in their mistakes, tell them to read the article out loud to themselves. Usually, that's enough to catch many errors. You can always fix some of the errors yourself if you wish to, or add the {{proofread}} template to get someone else to do it. For more specifics, see the section "subtleties".

Give Alternatives/Ideas

Discourage the use of lists and excessive randomness--unless, of course, the lists or randomness are funny. Instead of just saying that something sucks, it's much better to give useful alternatives or suggestions which could make things better. Two heads are better than one, and the author may be looking for some fresh ideas.

  1. History: Did they explain the history of the thing they're talking about?
  2. People: Did they talk about important people involved?
  3. Applications: Did they talk about how the article relates/doesn't relate to the reader's life?
  4. Usage: How is it used?
  5. What if?: What if the average person tried doing this?
  6. Why?: Why does the average person care about this?
Oscar

“Hello, I'm Oscar Wilde. Why are you killing my soul?”
~ Oscar Wilde on why you are killing his soul

Discourage In-Jokes

See Category:Uncyclopedia In-Jokes

Uncyclopedia has many in-jokes that are often intolerable in many articles. You should know them, and discourage their use. The most common ones are quotes from Oscar Wilde, Russian Reversal, and Chuck Norris, as well as references to Kitten Huffing. If you see one of these jokes, make sure that it is suitable in the context. For example, Oscar Wilde was a brilliant, insightful man, so if someone is using a Wilde quote, make sure that it's something which he might actually have said.

Formatting

Is the article 'ugly'? If so, in what way is it ugly? Does it have large blocks of unbroken text or eleven paragraphs in a row that are one sentence long? It may have too many pictures, or too few pictures, or very few links to other articles.

It might be evident that the author of the article was not aware of some basic formatting skills which make articles look nice. If you think this is the case, consider formatting a small section of the article to show them how to do it.

How many sentences in the article are between 10 and 20 words long and consist of two or more clauses separated by a comma? How many are less than 5 words long? If most sentences in a piece have the same general length and structure, then the piece often feels dull. Very short sentences can be a delightful seasoning in prose, and short sentences are often strong. They have impact.

Pictures

If you feel that the number of pictures is fine, comment on the pictures themselves. Very rarely are pictures themselves the problem unless they don't match the article itself, or are there for no reason. Occasionally, you may see completely unacceptable pictures, but this is very rare... damn noobs don't know how to upload images! Except in special circumstances, there should not be a picturespam gallery (<gallery>). Make sure that most pictures are thumbs of an appropriate size, with a humorous caption.

Advanced Reviewing

UnNews New thing called wheel make move mud less hard

Advanced reviewing good. Moon God pleased.

When you have considered the above you might increase the usefulness of your review by commenting on the following.

Concept

This is the hardest part of Pee Review to score. Here are a few tips:

  1. Many different unrelated ideas jumbled into one article is generally not a good thing. It's best if there is one core idea behind it.
  2. Don't score on how funny it could possibly be. The fact that Jerry Seinfeld could make it brilliant is not important. Jerry's not here, and if you have to give a "potential" score for that article, make sure it's for that writer based on the rest of the article.
  3. Are you jealous of the idea? If so give concept a high score.

Tone

Is the article written in a tone of voice appropriate to the context? Is it too angry, too passive or too boring for the concept? If so, let them know.

Worlds first hard drive

The reviewertron is running at full capacity!!!11!eleven

What style is the article written in, and has the author made it work?

  1. Sarcasm: A sarcastic person over the interweb is difficult to distinguish from a complete idiot. For sarcasm to work it usually has to be way over the top, unless it's obvious.
  2. Deadpan: Ever seen Superbad or Arrested Development? That's what deadpan humor "is". For it to work over the internet, it has to be somewhat out of the norm because the internet doesn't carry facial expressions or the tone of voice (yet).
  3. Parody: Parody is very difficult to pull off. The reader has to know the actual subject matter, then notice that it's parody as well as find it funny. Is it likely that most readers will be able to do this with the article in question?

Person

Does the article switch from first to second person without explanation? Is it disconcerting for some reason? At this point, bring to bear the article's direction. Who is it talking to or about? Is it breaking the fourth wall too much, or unexpectedly? This part of reviewing takes a lot of stamina.

Subtleties

If a joke falls flat not because of its poor grammar and not because the joke isn't inherently funny, then something else way more complicated is going on. Usually, these type of errors are found in specific sentences, so they're easier to fix than tone and person. Look for these problems:

  1. Punctuation Matters: If a comma is in the wrong place, or if there are too many, the flow of the joke can be messed up. Commas should be used to separate 3 or more items, not 2.
  2. Emphasis (Italicization/Bolds): Emphasis should be used sparingly, but it should probably be used once in most articles. If a joke has an exclamation point at the end, the joke is usually ruined (unless it's absolutely hilarious). Same with italicize and bold.
  3. Starting a sentence with descriptive clauses prior to introducing the subject is usually not appropriate. "Hasbro, the childrens' toy company" is better than "the childrens' toy company, Hasbro".
  4. Blocks of text are not wanted. Make sure that there are appropriate breaks for the reader, and that each paragraph focuses on a single general topic.

An Example Pee

Below shows a well done pee. Note that the reviewer has given genuinely useful advice as well as pointing out problems.

Humour: 7 Pretty funny, but I think it could be even better, if you work on it. I highly recommend HTBFANJS, I read it every time I write something, and it really is great for ideas and tricks to get a quick laugh. Also, make sure that whatever you intend to be funny is very clear. For example, in this line: "wearing nothing but a shirt, tie, shoes, socks, underpants and a three-piece suit", I think you're trying to insinuate that Darwin was wearing no pants, right? If so, make sure that it's very clear; the sentence you have there is somewhat confusing. Other than that, really think about what you want to be funny. Make sure that everything you write has some intent, and try to know why something you write is funny, so that you can be sure that it is.
Concept: 8 I find myself enjoying this concept very much. It has a lot of potential for satirical humor, but I think you could exploit this a little better. Personally, I'd like to hear more about how Darwin is "the second-coming of the atheist messiah". It just felt to me like you got off a track a little bit. Try to really have an idea of a direction you want a page to go in, otherwise you run a risk of becoming a little bit irrelevant.
Prose and formatting: 6.5 Mostly ok prose, but could be better in a few places. For example, look at this sentence: "Akin to claims of arrests being made to question people." That's a fragment, and I'm unsure as to what you mean by it. Remember that writing comedy has to be spot on--if you've ever told a joke or watched a stand-up comic, you know that comedic timing and delivery are everything. Writing humor is exactly the same, but harder, so don't be afraid to use plenty of commas, boldness, and italics to get your delivery to the point where it can only be uninterpreted one way--the way that you want it to be interpreted.

Formatting is good, although you may want to italicize your "quotes".

Images: 7 Your images, though relevant, could be much funnier. Don't be afraid to use the captions to insert a joke, they're great for one-liners.
Miscellaneous: 7.1 Avg'd your score, via {{Pee}}: {{Pee|7|8|6.5|7}}
Final Score: 35.6 Basically, the page is solid and stands on its own, but with a little more tuning up, a little pruning (don't be afraid to delete stuff from your own page), it could become a prime Uncyclopedia UnNews. Just read through it slowly, with a critical eye, and try to fix everything. Good luck.
Reviewer: - SomeGuyWithNoLedInHisPencil 01:01, April 1


Conclusion

It is (of course) up to you to decide how to go about doing your Pee Reviews and all of the above should be considered guidelines and, like Wikipedia guidelines, can be ignored if they get in the way of good reviewing. So long as your intentions are good and you put a reasonable amount of effort into the process the submitter will be grateful. Users will probably find your reviews the most useful when you offer alternative suggestions for how things might be done rather than just highlighting mistakes.

Thank you for reading this guide. Now what the hell are you still doing here? Go and review something you lazy bugger!

Personal tools
projects