Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnScripts:Officers and Espionage
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
|
edit UnScripts:Officers and Espionage
I did some new type of formatting for this one. Tell me what you think. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 10:03 Oct 30 2009
- With my internet window fully expanded, the separate image files didn't show up going one-by-one down the page, but by two, side by side, which could potentially be problematic. I have no idea how you'd go about fixing this (though making the window less wide works just fine), but I figured I'd bring it to your attention. I should also note that my monitor is fairly big, so I'd imagine most people won't have that problem. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 15:55, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
- Weird. Maybe a break after each image? --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 00:12 Oct 31 2009
- I'd imagine that would work. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 16:32, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
- Weird. Maybe a break after each image? --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 00:12 Oct 31 2009
- I see the same problem EMC, and my monitor is not particularly large at all. So yes, a small fix may be in order. IronLung 03:23, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
This one is next on my list, but from a quick glance above and then at the article I have noticed that the problem identified by Guildy still persists. Would you like the review with this still in, or would you rather correct it first? Let me know. --ChiefjusticeDS 19:24, November 22, 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to just make it text-based, as annoying as it will be. I'll let you know when I'm done with it, as I'd much appreciate a Pee Review on it when it's done. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 11:41 Nov 24 2009
- By the way, this might have to be deleted from Uncyclopedia in the following months depending on whether or not this script actually gets published by FoldedWord Press, so I'm kind of sketchy about this being seen as an abuse of Uncyclopedia and Pee Review as an outlet for feedback and other such shit since I initially intended for this to be published (in all likelihood it won't be published so it isn't an issue, but there's still the slim chance since it's in limbo). Also, I think this work being on Uncyclopedia might lessen my chances of having it published due to their publishing guidelines, but fuck it (buttfuck lol). --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 14:12 Nov 24 2009
- From what I've seen, if something can be found on the Internet a publisher considers it already published. The only exception would be if it's private access only, and even then only if that access is given to very few people for the purpose of review. Of course if it's privately posted a publisher isn't likely to know how many people saw it, but Uncyclopedia is (fortunately for us, not fortunately for your article) not private. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 21:14, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, this might have to be deleted from Uncyclopedia in the following months depending on whether or not this script actually gets published by FoldedWord Press, so I'm kind of sketchy about this being seen as an abuse of Uncyclopedia and Pee Review as an outlet for feedback and other such shit since I initially intended for this to be published (in all likelihood it won't be published so it isn't an issue, but there's still the slim chance since it's in limbo). Also, I think this work being on Uncyclopedia might lessen my chances of having it published due to their publishing guidelines, but fuck it (buttfuck lol). --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 14:12 Nov 24 2009
- Also did you want this Pee Reviewed now? Sorry, I got myself lost in the discussion. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 21:15, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
- Once I update this with the text-based version to fix formatting. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 23:32 Dec 1 2009
- OK! WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 19:33, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
- Done. It's all ready for Pee Reviewing! --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 11:44 Dec 4 2009
- I'm not going to officially claim this as it will probably take me more than 48 hours to get to it. If somebody hasn't reviewed it by then, I probably will. In the meantime, it's open to be reviewed by whoever. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 16:54, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
- Done. It's all ready for Pee Reviewing! --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 11:44 Dec 4 2009
- OK! WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 19:33, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
- Once I update this with the text-based version to fix formatting. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 23:32 Dec 1 2009
- I'm on it. Look for it within 24 hours. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 05:35, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
- Pee Review in progress.... WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 03:18, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
- I'm on it. Look for it within 24 hours. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 05:35, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
| Introduction to your reviewer
I like to tell my reviewee about myself so you know how unqualified I am. I won RotM, so some people think I don't totally suck. As for scripts, well, I, ahem, have a fair amount of theatrical background. Also I've watched military and spy movies on TV. | ||
| Concept: | 8 | I think the concept of the bumbling military vs. competent opponents is a good one. It's been done many, many times, but that's because it works. |
| Prose and Formatting: | 8 | I usually put most or all of my Humour comments in with Prose and Formatting so I don't keep repeating myself, but do score them separately.
Your introduction
S C E N E O N E
S C E N E T W O
S C E N E T H R E E
S C E N E F O U R
S C E N E F I V E
S C E N E S I X
Formatting--I like the way you formatted the introduction, and think it was fine in the rest. |
| Humo(u)r: | 7.5 | As described in detail above, the parts I thought were funniest I really liked, but in some areas (again, as described above) I think the humour could use some work, and I believe you can make significant improvements. |
| Images: | 7.5 | I'm rather counting descriptions as images (I do like the boots, and as I said above the look of the introduction). Personally, I've read lots of scripts so images in the middle of this would seem out of place, but I don't know how other readers would feel. |
| Miscellaneous: | 7.75 | average of above |
| Final Score: | 38.75 | I think with a little work, this could be very good. Definitely let me know on my talk page if you edit this, and I hope you do. (Also when I score something here at just under 40, it means I'm thinking with a little improvement, it could be VFH). |
| Reviewer: | WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 04:55, December 9, 2009 (UTC) | |
