Reviewed twice. It needs more tweaking, however. Please include detailed advice in your review. Le Cejak•<-> 23:54, Nov 13
Alright, let's do this! -Razorflame(contributions)Talk 04:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
*Intro(7)-Feels like it's lacking humour from my standpoint, but I know that you would rather hear that it is funny, which I think it is in one light, but not the other. I think you need to rework this intro to make it understandable to us normal users.
Step 1:Part 1(10)-This was actually funny! Kudos!
Step 1:Part 2(9)-Humour was there, but a little dry for my tastes. Maybe fix this up a little?
Step 1:Part 3(10)-Nothing needs to be changed here. Funny.
Step 2:Part 1(6)-This did not feel funny at all. Change this please and make it more funny. Maybe add some more word play?
Step 2:Part 2(7)-This did not feel funny at all. Change this please and make it more funny. Maybe add some more word play? Exact same as the last one.
Step 2:Part 3(10)-There you go! You finally did it right!
Step 3(9)-Funny up until the last bolded heading. Then, it gets a little unfunny. Otherwise, good part.
Step 4(9)-Funny in a WTF? kind of way. The last part, with the list, is funny, but I think you should revert the list into paragraph form. You should also move the template to the top of the article.
Original concept that is fully fleshed out. Enough said.
Prose and formatting:
Near perfect grammar and formatting. Just a little typo here and there, otherwise, perfect.
Images that actually have humourous captions. Astounding!
Average of the other 4 scores.
Fix what I've said above. Otherwise, good article!