From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Rewritten from a clusterfuck of crap. A couple of things i'm looking for in a review are how to make this guy sound more stoned, the format of my images, and how much better or worse it is from the previous version. Saberwolf116 19:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
|Humour:||8||I didn't laugh. I smiled a couple of times, but I did not laugh. Some Uncyclopedia articles actually make me laugh. This one didn't. That is an important part of writing the article.
I don't get the link to Mr.N9000's user page under the drivin gtheir own car. How should I? Those in-jokes don't make good jokes in general.
Redundancy is Ok. Wasn't all that funny in this case, though.
|Concept:||8||I think Wikipedia may have an article on Stoned. If that's the case, than the concept is always okay.|
|Prose and formatting:||6||Too many ellipses(The ...s) and commas space out and slow down the pace, making it difficult to read, because I have to pick out the words from the punctuation. I understand that the author is stoned, but I dislike this manner of writing. There is also not much formatting to be seen, except for the occasional link, and the pictures inadvertantly get in the way of the article.|
|Images:||8||Adequate. An abundance of them brings the score up a point. The Bin Laden picture is funny, so that helps.|
|Miscellaneous:||7||It was too short! It's close to stub-worthy.|
|Final Score:||37||In short, it has it's moments, but not many. I've seen much worse though.|
|Reviewer:||MaxPayne 19:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)|