Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Insurance Policy Fetish

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 01:24, November 4, 2008 by Mnbvcxz (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit Insurance Policy Fetish

Just finished it, created by a spontaneous idea on IRC. It's short, but, like I say, quality not quantity. RougethebatAdmiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate SonicLivesPicture 17:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Humour: 4 It sounds too much like a wikipedia article. You did avoid the evils of ultra-hyperbole, crassness, nonsense, Oscar Wilde quotes, image whoring, internet memes, et cetera. However, the subject matter is too "tame" to use a complete deadpan. Deadpan only works for more extreme subject matter, like really perverted crap, eating babies, and the like. I really didn't find this funny at all, but I might just be desensitized to shocking material. In order to fix it, you'll probably need to add more subtle forms of humor, not bombastic nonsense, shock material, et cetera.
Concept: 7 Good concept, it appears to be making fun of other fetishes.
Prose and formatting: 8.5 No red links, grammar and spelling are good. There are some places where the grammar is a little off, for example "this does not stop extreme fetishists to continue the act" should be "from continuing". Some of that could be from editing the text several times and not aligning phrases right. You might want to read the article out loud to catch everything.
Images: 7 Images are ok. Nothing bad, they're relevant to the subject, and you have a good image to text ratio, but nothing stood out either.
Miscellaneous: 6.6 average of other scores
Final Score: 33.1 It needs more humor/jokes. Basically, its a "all proper formatting and background but no actual humor article", the polar opposite of the typical nonsense article. Fortunately, these are easier to improve than articles which have all one-liners and no structure. Finally, is there a specific point in the article do you normally laugh, or at least chuckle, when you read it?
Reviewer: --Mnbvcxz 01:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects