Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/MSN Messenger's Guide to Manners, Proper Behavior and Slapstick
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
New piece, finally. State your opinion or withhold your tongue forever.13:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
|A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article|
is being reviewed by:
UU - natter
(While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead).
(Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole).
|Humour:||7.5||I like it. I'm possibly the wrong person to review this for any additional suggestions, given how rarely I use Messenger, but I know enough to chuckle along to this. Nonetheless, I'll make an attempt:
There must be some other conventions to play with? How about the language? Abbreviate to the point of insanity, never laugh, lol instead, that kind of thing.
And don't forget to welcome newcomers in that friendly style - ridiculing them for not knowing what anything means and the like. KWIM?
|Concept:||8||Yeah, good idea. There's a lot of potential with the idea, and you've already mined a fair bit of it. I'm sure there's more to squeeze from it though, if you're so inclined.|
|Prose and formatting:||7.5||Well, it did need a bit of a proofread, but luckily for you, some handsome, devil-may-care gentile seems to have done much of that for you. However, he seems to have left the ramble in the "signing off" section (and in the image caption) as it is, I suspect because he's a little confused by it. It is a bit odd - it doesn't seem to make sense - I know it's supposed to be a certain amount of stream of consciousness stuff, with one idea crashing into another and making the reader feel somewhat claustrophobic and bored, but... "his conversation partner about who did how his cousin reacted" makes no sense, and pretty much lost me at the outset. A free-associating but vaguely coherent ramble would feel a little better here. This bit definitely needs some more attention, which is why the proofread tag remains in place. Keep the idea, but re-do the wording a little.|
|Images:||9||Very good. That Mr Operandi is a talented fellow, and you've made good use of him here. About the right number, and all relevant and well used. The last one seems a little big, especially given the caption - it creates a lot of white space at the bottom for me, although that could just be the odd resolution I like to have my monitor set to. I did see your request in RadX's corner, but couldn't really find anything that fit well with what you were asking. I may have another look following this, now I have a better idea what you're after. That pic isn't bad, but it is probably the weakest of the 4.|
|Miscellaneous:||8||Averaged per the Geneva convention or something|
|Final Score:||40||Good stuff! I do think at the very least that the "signing off" bit needs to be re-done somewhat. But is it VFH-able? Well I'd have thought so, but then, I thought the Polish Inquisition would sail through it, so what do I know? Perhaps a little expansion would help your chances, although it is a rather decent read as it is.|
|Reviewer:||--SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 12:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)|