Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Be Emo? (2nd Review)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Why?:Be Emo?

Did some changes and want a second look now to finish it up. In-depth please! Thanks ~SirTagstitVFHNotMPEEINGCPTRotMBFF 09:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hi Tagstit! I am going to review your article soon! How do you like my Pee Template? You can answer here or on my Talk Page. Thanks! :)

--User:Skate1168/sig 22:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good bud! A bit rude but if it works for you than keep it ! --~SirTagstitVFHNotMPEEINGCPTRotMBFF 00:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry I thought about it last night and I think I am going to change it. :)

--User:Skate1168/sig 17:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it to something a lot better! Hope you like it! :)

--User:Skate1168/sig 17:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I do like it! It moves :) always a plus ~SirTagstitVFHNotMPEEINGCPTRotMBFF 23:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! :D

--User:Skate1168/sig 01:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


Skate1168 is reviewing your article. Please give him some time. If there no review in 5 days (at the very most), you should remove this template.

Humour: 9 The humor in this article is very good, even though the article was also written in a sad way. One example of the good humor in this article is :
Cquote1 Also, by putting it in your eye, people think you only have one eye, and get freaked out. For a second it is funny, because you really have two...ha...ha. But I am just kidding, we really have two eyes...well...mostly. Cquote2
Also, when you end some of the sentences with ...ha...ha...oh sadness..., it actually does make the article funnier. I could not find much to critique in this area.
Concept: 9 This has a good concept to write about especially for a Why:? article. This area also could not be critiqued.
Prose and formatting: 8 There were no grammar or spelling mistakes in this article and everything was laid out in an excellent manner, making the article appear more encyclopedia uncyclopedic. The last paragraph, ”Miscellaneous things, the miscellaneous things of the emos,” is well, miscellaneous. This could be left there like that, but you could also put some of those ”facts” in new categories, or you could modify your existing categories so they could be placed in there. This is not a great flaw, but if this was fixed, the score for prose would be perfect!
Images: 10 The images were great, even though they were not super colorful (but seriously, it is an article about emos. They are not supposed to be colorful), and the captions were hilarious. One example of the hilarious captioning was:
Cquote1 I wish my grass were emo, then it would cut itself...ha...ha...oh sadness... Cquote2
I found this hilarious and I don’t think anything regarding the images should be changed.
Miscellaneous: 9 This is the average rating of this article. This article could get a ten for this score if the prose comment was accounted for.
Final Score: 45 This is a good article, because I enjoyed this article even though I not really into ”How To” or ”Why?” articles, although I am now!
P.S. Sorry this review came in so late! I got sick and stayed sick for a couple days. I feel better now, so I finally got the chance to get this review written.
Reviewer: --User:Skate1168/sig 00:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools