Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/I ate your Haagen-Dazs
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
I SUBMIT THIS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION19:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
|Humour:||7||I pretty much got what I expected out of this. It's sort of funny, but given that this is territory well-treaded, it's hard to get excited over it. There's not much to improve--which is both a good and bad thing--and as a result I can't give you a whole lot of advice. The one thing I would suggest you do, however, is italicize or bold (or both) different parts of dialog for emphasis, man. Like, when you write an article about how some dude was totally fuckin' smashed and took out your kidney, you should make it seem like said dude relayed the story to you in a lively and energetic manner, 'cause it rings true that way, man. Otherwise it just feels, and reads, flat.|
|Concept:||6||I said this above, but I'll say it again: this is territory well-tread. It's been done before. There's dozens of articles just like this one. Not to belabor the point, but seeing as this "genre" of article, or whatever, is pretty well established, I have to dock you some points.
The execution of said concept, however, is pretty good, and in no need of improvement.
|Prose and formatting:||7||No grammatical errors or misspellings or anything, though this is both a good and bad thing. When you write these sort of colloquial, first/second-person articles, it should feel just that: colloquial. I said this above in the humor section, so I won't reiterate it here, so yeah.
Other than that, the sections are pretty evenly divided, (I'd've used third rather than second level headers, though that's really just a nitpick), the images are evenly distributed, and links are done in appropriate places. Everything's solid, but not outstanding.
|Images:||6.5||Your images do their job, but not much else. The first one is obligatory and has a good caption, the second one works, and the final one is literally the size of a thumbnail and should therefore probably be larger. All the captions/images go along with what's happening in the main text pretty well, but they're all so standard I can't say much else about them. Basically, you should do to your images what I suggest you do to the tone of your article: spice it/them up a little. I know that's kind of vague advice, but that's all I got at the moment.|
|Miscellaneous:||6.25||Average-ish. What I'd rate this out of 10.|
|Final Score:||32.75||This is a solidly executed--but ultimately flat--article. Spice it up a little.|
|Reviewer:||—Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 20:47, September 7, 2009 (UTC)|