GREAT review, btw - Le Cejak•<-> 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Humour:
7.8
Good for the most part. In the first half, it needs work. In the second half, it works.
P1-(5): Needs a bit of work. There were some funny lines (student Mak Intosh), but the second half of it felt dry. Maybe add a bit more humour?
P2-(6): Better, but the first half of this paragraph felt dry. The second half was very nice and made me laugh throughout.
P3-(10): Very nice humour here. Maybe a picture or 2 here would be nice? Made me laugh out loud very often.
P4-(10): Again, very nice humour here. A picture would work wonders here.
Score is the average of these 4 scores.
Concept:
9.3
Very good content for the most part.
P1-(8): Could use a bit of explination maybe? Maybe you could expand this a bit?
P2-(9): Could use an expansion (just a little). Other than that, good.
P3-(10): Good content. Made me laugh the most.
P4-(10): Good content. Made me laugh a lot.
Score is average of these 4 scores.
Prose and formatting:
8.3
Good prose, but I get lost while reading it a bit.
P1-(8): Flow is a little choppy here. Readability is good. I think that if you could improve the flow here, that you would easily be able to make this section funnier.
P2-(6): I got lost about halfway through this paragraph. The flow is nice, but the readability isn't. All those numbers aren't very good for the uneducated.
P3-(10): Very nice here. Leave this paragraph alone :).
P4-(9): Just need to make the description in the first part of the paragraph flow nicer. Other than that, good paragraph.
Score is the average of these 4 scores.
Images:
0
No images. Not good. This article would be MUCH funnier if it had images.
Miscellaneous:
6.4
Average of 4 scores above.
Final Score:
31.8
Fix the areas that I have detailed above. This is a very nice concept and article, just needs a few kinks to be worked out.
(contributions) Talk 01:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
