Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Random links
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
|Humour:||5||General idea is funny, but I get the feeling that your filibustering. Filibustering is when you run out of ideas and start inserting weak material in order to finish off an article or increase its size. You almost always want to avoid that, if at all possible. Try to increase short sections first, it will make your article look better.|
Also, your prose runs a bit choppy; you should aim for a more conversational tone. Reading it out loud might help you; however, don't over convolve it. This article sort of gives the feeling that it was written by a very literate pre-teen due to the "wooden" and "flat" nature of the prose.
On the plus side your article does have consistency and does avoid the evils of internet memes, crassness, et cetera ad infinitum.
|Concept:||6||The concept is in-joke-ish, but I think it works. However, the article needs to be fleshed out more, it looks like a snub.|
|Prose and formatting:||7||Grammar and spelling looks good; however, there are a few usage errors, choppy sentences, fragments, et cetera. I fixed a few of them; its easier to correct those things than try to tell the author how to do it. Additionally, your headers are too close together. In this case, I'd recommend adding more content, not removing headers. To much white space gives your article an ugly look and increases its stub-y look.|
As a final note, the pscore is the value as it is after correction, before, it would have been a 6.
|Images:||0||Ain't got none. Generally, you should always have an image in an article. Even if you think your article doesn't need an image, consider adding one. Most readers consider an image basic part of an article, not having one gives off the same feeling as not having section divisions. Even one sorta good image will generally give you at least a 5 or 6 in this category.|
|Miscellaneous:||6.5||improvability score. I think this has the potential to be a good article; however, it needs to have more content. It would need to be at least 2-3 times as long to be out of snub-length.|
|Final Score:||24.5||NEED MOAR CONTENT & PICS'|
|Reviewer:||--Mnbvcxz 19:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)|
P.S. Basically, the article needs to have more content to get a more in depth review. Its rather hard to do an in depth humor review on a stub article. I'd advise placing this back on pee review after the article is at least 2-3 times longer if you want a more in-depth review.--Mnbvcxz 06:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)