Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/We Are Your Best Friend

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 22:07, July 12, 2008 by Heerenveen (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit We Are Your Best Friend

For some odd reason I've been trying to compleate 3 different things for weeks now and I start something new on the same day I complete it. Anyway that's irelevant. Is it any good for a days work? Could it be featured? In-Depth review apreciated. SK Sir Orian57Talk Gay flag RotM 22:15 11 July 2008

Well, who were you expecting to review this? ~~Heeren ["Meh"] [tecħ] [kurk] [12/07 08:38]
Humour: 5.8 Sorry, but first impressions just scream "gimmick article". I hate reviewing gimmick articles. Anyway, /me puts one of the very sad songs from Final Fantasy X on background, puts on reviewing pants. And yes, these are red links, but they'll be blue when you move to mainspace (which you should, dammit!)
  • top: -6- - decent. A bit short - it could do with a couple more lines of descriptions (funny how I say that a lot in reviews, maybe it's because I prefer a 1,000 character ramble of an opener, but maybe that's just me) - three lines isn't nearly enough for an article with this little text overall. I liked "tailored esspecially to your interests and perversions " (bold is spelling fix).
  • Colour coding key: -4- - I know this sets up something later in the article, but it doesn't really come off, and it's too much hassle for your average Uncyc reader to scroll back up to see what the related colour was. It doesn't really work, and I'd suggest using something more streamlined, but it's your call.
  • Our Selection Just For You!: -6- - It's alright I guess - in the context of the article it definitely works, but I feel that the whole thing is just way too complex for your casual reader to get. There are a couple of good lines here, such as "at least have a patch of land to call their own instead of standing on a carpet of catholics like everyone else in 2100 ", but it just gets buried beneath all the templatey-ness.
  • Need Ideas For Christmas or Birthdays?: -7- - You can basically put what I put for the section above here. It gets an extra point because of how it's formatted with the extra text outside, but otherwise it plays exactly the same tune. Two other things: That is a huge amount of whoring in these two sections, and in the kids section here you used the same gun template twice, I'm not sure if that was intentional or not.
  • And don't forget...: -6- - It's a nice little ending in trying to convince the reader, but again it requires expansion. I know it's whoring, but Cis-zeatin O-beta-D-glucosyltransferase uses this joke for basically the whole article if you want to find good ways to exoand on it. Again, the snappy section might be de rigour for this kind of article, I don't know, it's not my speciality.
Concept: 4 If you get another review of this, your concept score will probably be much higher. But you're stuck with me as a reviewer, and as I've already said, I'm not really one for gimmicky articles, which, you've gotta admit, this sort of is. Just my personal preference. It's a good idea, definitely, but purists are going to take shots at the execution. Also, this needs a lot more background text, as that is where the majority of your jokes are coming from. It reads like DYK at the minute - it needs to feel more like an article if you know what I mean.
Prose and formatting: 7 Well, I definitely can't fault the formatting. God knows how many templates, all formatted and aligned correctly. I hate to think how much work's gone into making them look right. The spelling's a bit off (such as "terestrial" instead of "terrestrial"), and I reckon a quick going over with that handy F7 button may be in order to keep it looking fresh and tidy. I've given this a high score because of the sheer amount of volume of templates though.
Images: 8 Again, an absolute shedload here. This review is starting to get on my nerves, because this is such an abstract article. They all fit very well with what they are describing, and give the article more of a shoppy feel to it. Two complaints I have, but only minor ones: Some of them I know I've seen before, but you'll only have that problem with experienced Uncyclopedians; and that some of the resolutions are a bit off, but that's easily fixable. Again, sheer volume elevates this score.
Miscellaneous: 2 I'm doing a Boomer here and weighing the score rather than averaging it. Why? Because I feel I've given undue weight to P&F and images due to the amount of templates in this. I don't like doing this, but 34-35 seems too high for this article and this reviewer.
Final Score: 26.8 This is a very decent article for its type, definitely. I think the kind of people who like this article type would lap it up. However, I'm not one of those people, so I came in with a fairly cynical view. Personally, this is easily mainspace, but I don't think it's near feature quality. And I have to put a disclaimer: Like UU's reviews, this is only my opinion, feel free to get others, and like UU, I'm a fairly tough scorer (though I'm not Hype), so these scores may be below the normal mean. Good luck!
Reviewer: ―― Sir Heerenveen, KUN [UotM RotM VFH FFS SK CM NS OME™] (talk), 12/07 22:07
Personal tools
projects