Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/HowTo:Review an Uncyclopedia article
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Ok. I know it needs work. I mainly want info on the concept. But please, review it all.
User:Lord Serioch 11:28 pm 5 Feb, 2008
|Humour:||8||Ho, ho ho!! Excellent read, and a good ending. I like it.|
|Concept:||7||It made sense, although some bits could be elaborated on, like how to be a jackass.|
|Prose and formatting:||8||Some errors, but nothing a good proofread won't fix.|
|Images:||7||Some good images, and good captions.|
|Miscellaneous:||6||The example of a pee review was the best.|
|Final Score:||36||Overall, it was a pretty good go. If this was your first (or best) article, then I see that you will have a good future on Uncyclopedia. And I'm not saying that just because I'm failing at it. I'm not! Anyway, I'd be sure as happy to help you out on this if you want. I like to help|
|Reviewer:||--Garionepsilon 11:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)|
I think this is the one you wanted a second opinion on. I won't do a full review, but some comments are as follows:
The concept is a good one, I think - a lot of people do have a problem accepting a critical review, even when the person reviewing were trying to help. Writing something from this point of view therefore has plenty of potential. However, you need expansion here, as at the moment it's short on content, apart from the mock review, and it feels listy as a result. So spend more time explaining exactly what sort of asshole-ish behaviour should be displayed, such as ridiculing of your precious lists, dismissing that Chuck Norris joke you spent aaaages getting right, dismissing your image as an MS Paint effort (OK, so it was MS Paint, but they didn't need to point that out), that sort of thing.
Basically, you've got a good idea here, but I think it needs quite a bit of expansion. Have fun with it. Good ending though. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 11:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)