It hasn't been done to my knowledge, a pee review would be excellent. Just a word of warning, if you view the article on a Widescreen monitor the pictures continue on past the article, however if you view it on a normal monitor it looks just right. --Mgr.SirSonic80☭ 00:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
a solid start. you introduce your concept, i see a clear direction. some of it seems unfinished, like when you say "one of man's greatest accomplishments, along with the beer cooler, and the remote control, but how..." you seem to trail off from the list. add another invention in there (the rule of three suggests an absurd one, like midgets). i'm not sure how well the term 'titters' works, it seems kind of weird to me.
2700 BC: 7
not so strong by itself, but you finished it nicely. it kind of drags since you already mentioned the egyptians in the intro; i suggest removing that reference to allow for greater impact in this section. i also suggest a more encyclopedic tone; i think it would serve an absurd article such as this quite well. for example, instead of saying "Lets take a step back in time" and "The year was 2742 BC" (as if it was a TV documentary), just go with "In 2742 BC".
Dark Ages: 8
i do like the concept of the phrase ending the plague and starting the renaissance. you do use a lot of bold text, i recommend making the quotes italic and using the phrases slightly less.
i like the way you wrapped it up. i'd like to see more development of why the phrase works. maybe famous uses of the phrase? the future?
i'd give this about a 7 for concept. it's not a well-known subject, but it's an encyclopedic entry on an absurd thing. i suggest making it more encyclopedic, with more official-sounding wording and such.
Prose and formatting:
there were quite a few spelling and grammar mistakes, i'll give uou a proofread. all your images are squashed onto the right side right on top of each other; it's your own decision, but i feel that images look better staggered (some on the left, some on the right).
some of the images you have are great, but you seem to have to many. the sports one, the inside our homes one, and the last one don't really fit into the article. so either take them out or extend the article with sections relating to those images.
average or GTFO!
my preview button tells me that your score is 33.2. i would say that this is just short of being a solid, average article, with the prose and image issues holding it back. i think a little better tone and a bit more content could go a long way. good luck!
another note on your formatting: you seem to not use the accepted headers, namely ==Title==, for your sections. i'm not sure if this is intentional or not but i'll correct it in an edit marked 'header formatting', which you can feel free to revert at your leisure. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 19:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)