Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Thekillerfroggy/Regent

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 15:28, June 12, 2008 by Boomer (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit User:Thekillerfroggy/Regent

Been working on this one sporadically for a while whenever I get ideas for what to add on, but for the moment I've run dry. Review me, I need some inspiration.

Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 20:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bump D: --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 00:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh! Oh! I'll take it! Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 17:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Handle this one carefully, it's stirred up some controversy in its time. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 19:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
So, I think I might get to actually reviewing this now. Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 21:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Handle this one carefully, it's stirred up some distractions in its time. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 21:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
*cough* Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 23:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
/me minimizes IRC, stares at article. I will do this! Distractions, begone! Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Handle this one carefully, it's stirred up very few actual reviews in its time. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 01:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

FINISHED

Humour: 9 The humor in here is fantastic. You've used subtlety to great effect, and the jokes are clear and refined enough to show that much effort has been put into them. This is one of the few reviews where the article is far enough along for me to look at specific jokes, so I'll focus on a few points that bugged me. The first you probably really don't want to hear, but there is a minor (note, very minor) excess of anger here. The article focuses on the hypocrisy of the institution, so hostility would not be out of place (it's expected, actually), but some parts of this article aren't so much jokes as they are criticisms. These are far and few between, most notably how you linked "coeducational interdenominational Christian", but they're still noticeable. For the specific example I used, while the linking of sexist and racist may be ironic, they seem more hostile than good-natured. Nazi just seems completely out of place in the context of the article. However, as stated before the hostile sections are rare, and the only part that was "overly hostile" I pointed out above. The rest of the article is good-humored fun, and I enjoyed reading it. Actually, that's the only specific example I can find to talk about. On to concept!
Concept: 7 Unfortunately I can't give you many points in this category because this article isn't one of those that's based on concept but rather on a real-life institution. However, your approach to the article was interesting as most articles have trouble presenting a(n almost) completely objective point of view to mimic an actual encyclopedia entry. Even though the site is a parody of Wikipedia, most articles rely on the voice of the author and the personality of his persona rather than the subject content itself. Because you pulled this off, I've scored you higher than I otherwise would have for keeping with the spirit of the site so well and doing it so expertly.
Prose and formatting: 10 Just as it was for the last article of yours that I reviewed, your grammar and spelling are near perfect. The only mistake that I could find was probably an overlook while changing part of the article. You end the second paragraph under the second header with "What is this horrendous, misshapen world where fifteen year olds can be impregnated on accident, only to depregnate themselves with wire hangers and other implements of destruction?" and then begin the third with God let out a long, healthy guffaw and smiled at his Son. "Why, dear Patty, so you can clean it up!". I imagine the question in the second paragraph originally started with "Why", but in any case that's the only slip up in sight.
Images: 7 This is kind of a mixed bag for me. I do enjoy the images, and the first two are used brilliantly, but in the bottom portion of the article the only pictures present are portraits. While the captions are still well done and the pictures fit the parts of the article they correspond with, it's rather unnerving to have face after face staring you down, daring you to blink. Also, because they're all aligned to the right, it seems like they're ganging up on me, watching me, waiting for me to crack, wanting my soul.
Miscellaneous: 5 Scorecheat! The one and only reason that this score is so low is that the article is clearly not finished. In fact, since it seems to be about half-done, I give it half the Misc. score I would otherwise have bestowed upon it had it been done. That's right, because you have an unfinished article, you lost a full fucking 5 points. You could have had a perfect 10! But nooooooooo, not for TKF, he's gonna submit a half-finished article! Well, this'll show you ya cocky bastard! Oh yea!
Final Score: 38 Anyway, I think this article is already at a feature-worthy level. If it were finished, it could be put up on VFH right now! I hope you resubmit this for review after it's complete, I'd like to glance over the finished product sometime (but not review it, of course). Good luck with the rest of the article, I'm completely confident that you can make this into an easy feature. Cheerio!
Reviewer: Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 03:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, any ideas for expansion though? I'm really stumped right there. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 11:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, seeing as you said that the university has eight schools and you only mention four, and since you also based the article on the Wikipedia article, you could use some of the other schools Wikipedia mentions like School of Education or Government. If you wanted you could probably just change the number to four and write a conclusion, but I think the article should at least have one more section. Looking at the Wikipedia article, a section titled "Student Life" seems like good fodder. Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 15:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects