Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/We Are Your Best Friend (re-sub)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Erm yeah, didn't exactly get the most positive review last time but I've made some changes and I think it's a bit better now. Looking for an In-depth review please. SK Sir RotM 22:39 14 July 2008
- I'll claim this one - it looks interesting... Rt Hon W E Gladstone MP GOM | Converse | 13:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
|The Rt Hon W Gladstone, MP, GOM is currently discharging the contents of his bladder in the vicinity of this particular contribution. You are cordially advised to stand well back, as decades of consorting with courtesans has left his aim somewhat lacking in containment!|
|Humour:||6.7||It's good - it's taking a well-used concept and working it into Uncyclopedic humour.
|Concept:||8||Right, so... It's basically Gnome-Mart isn't it? (For those plebs among you who don't read Private Eye, it's a centre-page cartoon spread that they always have in the Christmas edition with lots of dodgy spoof gifts). Anyway - inherently, it's a funny concept, and the gifts/books are generally well executed, if a little random in places. I'm not sure how well the "We are your best friend" concept fits with it though - the bit about mother/wife/kids/15 year old distured piece on the side seems a bit, well, "Peep Show"-ish. And I never really got "Peep Show", so it's probably me.
My one query really is the gifts bit - it took me ages to work out that they're arranged in rows (Ok, so I am having a retard day...). Perhaps it's worth using some sub-headings to point it out?
|Prose and formatting:||8.5||You know what you're doing, so I feel a bit of a fraud even trying to comment on this bit!
It's easy for me to read as a fellow Brit, your prose is good and generally well punctuated. There's a couple of little splling errors/gramatical mistakes, but it'll be easier for me to edit the article than to try and list them all.
My one issue about the formatting is that it took me a while in the second section to work out that they were in rows (Ok, so I am having a retard day...). Perhaps it's worth using some sub-headings to point it out? Point off (plus half for the typos) as it spoiled the joke slightly for me.
|Images:||7||Sounds harsh? They're all good pictures - but they're a bit dry. That's not why I've marked it down though - oh no. It's a spoof of an online store, right? So GIVE ME A LOGO! (ahem). I don't care how crap it is, but the top welcome bit should have a logo on it.|
|Miscellaneous:||7.6||Average of previous scores.|
|Final Score:||37.8||It's nearly there - I think it's getting close to the finished article. There's just sort of odd bits which need touching up really.|
|Reviewer:||-- Rt Hon W E Gladstone MP GOM | Converse | 14:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)|