Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/HowTo:Make an Article That Will Get Deleted
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
I've recently cleaned it up a little bit. It looks atleast partly-civilised now. -Brayds2006 03:22, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
I have had an attempt at reviewing this page, but it's not really detailed. You can always request it be done again by someone else, just thought I'd give this reviewing lark a go. I'm a football referee, so I can take criticism (although I'd rather you didn't), and learn from it in the future.
While reviewing the page, some changes were made on it. My original commments have been retained, and any additional ones added below in italics. Joefoxon 08:50, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
|Humour:||6||It was a good start, but then the jokes disappeared in the middle and started to reappear at the end. The jokes that were in there were chuckles at best. There was nothing really in there to make me piss myself.
A few more jokes were added, of a reasonable quality, and have now been spread throughout the entire page. You have taken my advice to heart, even though you haven't even seen it yet.
|Concept:||7.5||I like the idea, although I'm not sure why. When I saw this on the list of Review requests, I was instantly intrigued. You managed to draw interest, which is always a good thing. All of the content was relevant and well structured. In this example, the short length is a good thing, because, being a HowTo, it needs to keep the reader's interest, which it did sucessfully.|
|Prose and formatting:||8||The article is quite well constructed, and covers the topic well, although I did expect it to be longer. As I have said in the Concept section, most of the information was relevant, and reasonably accurate (which, in this case, is a good thing).|
|Images:||8||The images and captions, although there were only two, were relevant for the topic. They were well placed in the article and fit in well with the surrounding text.|
|Miscellaneous:||7.4||Averaged using Pee.|
|Final Score:||36.9||The article is of a decent standard, but there is definitely room for improvement. The jokes need to continue throughout the article, and I really think that the lack of humour lets it down.
OK, so more jokes have been added, which makes some/all of my previous comments obsolete.
|Reviewer:||Joefoxon 08:50, April 9, 2010 (UTC)|