Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/ICarly (resubmit)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit ICarly

I got a review previously, however, it appears as though the reviewer did not get what I was trying to do. This is an ip "vandalism" of the ICarly article. I added some comments in the footnote section, links, and the pic, but the text itself is unedited.

I am fully aware that some people might not find this type of article funny because of the over-arching concept. However, I still want to improve the current version of this article. Mn-z 22:53, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

I may get to it sometime today or tomarrow, but anybody is happy to review it. And sorry, your right I did not get what you were saying the first time I reviewed this, I think I review this twice, but a third time wont hurt.--Grue JammyDirectorEye 4WILLExplode 3YOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 02:58, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Ok After reading this I declare this article mine. 2 hours--Grue JammyDirectorEye 4WILLExplode 3YOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 03:19, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Humour: 1 I decided to review this again since my first time reviewing this I was new to pee reviewing.

Honestly I see what you’re doing now, unlike last time; this was made by someone who vandalized the article. Making humor of the people who talk crap about the article seems like a good concept. Unfortunately, I see many problems this person made. First, all the paragraphs are too short to desirable lengths. Some have one sentence; others have three, which have few words. The person who made this probably barely put any effort into this.

Second, this article is clearly not to be humorous, but to defend iCarly and bash Uncyclopedia and the users who work on here. He probably read the other one and got mad (and he probably got banned). So obviously this wasn’t meant for humor.

Third, the point of view, in my opinion, sucks big gorilla dick. First-person should not be use in articles such as this one unless the writer does a good job at it, and in this case, this sucks. A example is Lazy Town, which is a good example made by Orian57.

Changes

First, the best thing to do is to change the tone of the article and make from a bash on Uncyclopedians to state the true facts and busting some false facts as well as criticizing people who believe in such crap, but not in the nature as it is currently in.

Second, change the point of view of the article. I prefer to use third person in this article and refrain from any first person sentences, unless it is like the example I showed above.

Third, Make the sentences longer. The one thing I hate most of all is paragraphs which has one sentence and has nothing else to support it and makes the article very messy

Fourth, change the title of the article to iCarly: The True Story or something like that, but this is optional

Concept: 1 Since this is a bash on people who make fun of ICarly and pointing out the truths, would be a good concept, but how it was written completely kills the concept.
Prose and formatting: 10 At least the previous editor had good handwriting
Images: 5 I see one, but it’s a start, maybe put down images of people who talk shit about iCarly, as well as images from the show
Miscellaneous: 4 My overall grade of this article
Final Score: 21 I think I did a better job than last time, and I truly hope you turn this into a swell article. If you any questions, you can always go to my talk page and I’ll be happy to answer them. Good Luck!
Reviewer: --Grue JammyDirectorEye 4WILLExplode 3YOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 04:47, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects