Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Speech Disorders
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
|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:||3||Only one joke, basically, and it quickly gets repetitive and annoying, and when you get past it, you have nothing else to offer. Plus it's intrusive to the point of putting anyone off reading the whole thing. Rely less on this, and try to get some other humour in there please.|
|Concept:||5||It's OK. I mean, your main idea is to write the article with speech defects reproduced in the text, which is OK. But there has to be a joke beyond this gimmick, and there just isn't much more. Take out all of the stuttering and "like"s and it's a direct Wikipedia spork. Expand. Add some jokes of your own. A Wikipedia article should be the base of an article, but you have to add to it, and not just in the way you have.|
|Prose and formatting:||5||Just too annoying to read properly. You hammer the "like" joke way too far into the ground. Sometimes less is more - remove a whole bunch of them, if only to make it easier to read. Seriously. I got so fed up reading this I copied it into Word and removed all the "like"s in there. Apart from that, it's fine enough. But get rid of the RR quote and the random box at the top.|
|Images:||2||One image. That's not really relevant. How about one of those charts opticians use in a stuttering version? Someone in waterproof clothes standing next to a sign with a lot of "s" words in it? Something a little more relevant to the article at any rate.|
|Miscellaneous:||4.3||Averaged per usual|
|Final Score:||19.3||Basically, add to it, and make it less annoying please. Adding speech defects to the text is fine, but if done with a little more restraint it should get your point across without hammering it home and making the whole thing almost impossible to read. And you need some other ideas beyond the Wikipedia text. See comments below.|
|Reviewer:||--Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 12:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)|
OK, think about it. There's plenty of potential here. You can expand the existing sections for starters. For example, use the Social Effects section to discuss the insults and bullying in great detail, and with glee. Make it a thinly disguised tirade by the author against people he sees as morons, perhaps. They're just not trying, are they? I call it inconsiderate, myself. Bastards. In fact, you could possibly continue that tone throughout the article - make it clear that the author is trying to sound unbiased, but not trying very hard, and generally failing. Of course, that's just one approach, and you may choose another, but please do choose one and follow it - as it stands, this desperately needs more ideas, and a bit less "like".