Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/HowTo:Get Your Candy Back Off That Baby

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 05:44, July 2, 2009 by Boomer (talk | contribs)

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


edit HowTo:Get Your Candy Back Off That Baby

Hello, here is my first HowTo. The pictures were selflessly provided by Elchileno74 Cheers for doing it. Nameable mumble? 12:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Concept, which must be
the basis of your article
if I'm using this template:
9 This is an interesting concept. I like that you took a clichéd phrase and turned it around, but I'm curious as to whether or not that was your actual intent. Regardless of how you came up with this concept, however, it's one I've not seen before and it's well-utilized in the article.
Humor, without a second u,
because I'm American:
6 You've paced yourself well here, and there are no sections that appear to be either streams of nonsense nor long buildups to a single punchline. However, I never found any sections to be particularly funny, though this may reflect more on my current lethargic mood than it does on the humor of the article itself. Despite my mood, however, the fact remains that nothing really "stands out" in the article (excepting one point which I'll cover in the next section). It's a very good article, but I believe that its primary weakness is that it's altogether too predictable. Many of my favorite articles have screwballs, parts which seem to be building up toward one thing but turn into another entirely. I can see from the level of this article that you don't need to read HTBFANJS, but the second point in this section illustrates my point rather well regardless.
Your spelling and grammar,
which probably sucks:
7 Very well done here, with no noticeable spelling or grammar errors (to my eye, anyway). However, there are two weak points here. The first is the entire indentation structure of the opening "dialog". The structure does give it a good sense of randomness, but the fact that this same pattern isn't carried into the rest of the article makes the section stand out in a bad way.

The second weak point is with your use of bold text, which is both too sparse and too common to add any humorous effect. If the bold text were used more frequently, say with every important verb or noun, it would add a good level of humor to the text. This is used to great effect in The Editing Room's Abridged Script series. On the other hand, simply using bold text more sparsely would allow greater emphasis on the words that are highlighted, possibly creating the same effect as above in an entirely different manner.

Images, or lack of: 7 The images used are good (though I'm iffy on the last one), and the captions to every one fit with the article very well, but given the length of the article there are altogether too few. A couple more images would certainly help, and get rid of some of the "block of text" feeling. One option to consider is to add an image to each one of the "What To Do Next" sections.
Miscellaneous, not averaged,
despite what some would
have you believe:
2 I'm using this section to "fix" the score. Explanation below.
Final Score, totaled, as most
would have you believe:
31 The article is very good, but I think that there are issues that need to be addressed before it can be considered for a feature. Given your writing skill, however, I'm sure you can turn this into a feature, and I anticipate the day this shows up on VFH. If I haven't run off again by then, I'll have to make sure to give you a vote.
Me: Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 05:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools