Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Do a Pee Review

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 05:47, April 27, 2011 by Fnoodle (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit Why?:Do a Pee Review

Yeah. I know. Please resist the urge to be dumb. :D (Article by me and MrN)   Le Cejak <03:47 Mar 28, 2008>

Literecy-cat
Humour: 9 Devilishly funny, especially in the benefits section. You do seem, lightly, to jab at the reviewer reviewing this article (but because I take jabs so well, I didn’t deduct anything). I gave you a 9 rather then a 10 only because I wasn’t laughing at the ENTIRE thing, only laughing most of the way through most of your tidbits of information.

If I may say so… my favorite quip was definitely “At this time NASA is using Pee Review in a last ditch attempt to answer the question 'where exactly is Waldo?'” Simply epic, Cajeck, simply EPIC.

Concept: 9 This is definitely a unique concept, to say the least, and in my month of servitude to Pee Review, I have not come across any article glorifying Pee Review. Unfortunatally, seeing as to how Pee Review is part of Uncyclopedia, I would imagine there is… just a bit of difficulty in making satire on it.
Prose and formatting: 9 I think the image says it all, your entire article did a great job grammar-wise, and your sentence structure is what I would have expected to see knowing your reputation. The absence of Red Links only helped this article, coupled with the plentiful amount of blue links, definitely helped. The one thing you are missing in is… categories! The only category this article has is “Why?”, which does not leave much advertising room for people to find it
Images: 8 Quite frankly, I am not sure if I should count the two Pee Review tables you added in as images, but after much moral debating with myself, I decided to include them in prose. However irrelevant that Moses image was, it was ‘’’still’’’ funny. I never was much of a fan of randomness, but hell, good randomness is still… good. An article of this length had the two images I was expecting to see, and was, most important, well placed.
Miscellaneous: 8.75 Avg’d as per… bah, you already know
Final Score: 43.75 Well, I don’t really see much that can be done to improve this article. I do have some light homework for you.
  1. Add more categories
  2. Rack your brain to see if you can come up with any more good jokes
  3. I honestly think the Pee Review image would do a bit better on the left
  4. Celebrate this article by eating a nice cookie.

Thank you for writing this article on Pee Review

Reviewer: Warm Regards, Javascap
Personal tools
projects