Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Knot?

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 18:15, April 12, 2008 by Optimuschris (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ


edit Why?:Knot?

Looking for another go, preferably one following the updated guidelines.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 02:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still moving upwards on the ol' learning curve when it comes to pee reviews so as always I'll not be offended in the slightest if you disregard this completely and get a second opinion. You might make my mother cry though. -OptyC Sucks! Icons-flag-us CUN 16:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Humour: 6 I'm sorry, I really wanted to like this more. Unfortunately it was amusing but not that funny. It seemed to rely a little too much on old people jokes and as much as I like to make fun of old people it just seemed a little predictable. It also revolves around a pun and the pun just doesn't have enough legs to carry an article of this length. On the other hand, I'm not sure how you could improve on it. It seems to hit the right notes and I have a sneaking suspicion I should be laughing more, but I've heard this song before. I really enjoyed the summations of each section. It's always nice when a section ends with a solid punchline and I laughed at evey one of them.
Concept: 6 Again, I really wanted to be on board. But the use of a fictional knot oversight organization threw me a little. It's good for a few laughs and the aspect of interviewing various members helps tie the article together. The flip side though is that it's a fairly standard tool. That's not bad in and of itself, but it knocks a few points off for originality. I'm not telling you to ditch it, but perhaps it would be possible to branch out a bit without fracturing the article. Easier said than done of course, just something to think about.
Prose and formatting: 9 Exactly what I'd expect from an experienced dood like you. It's laid out very nicely and it's very easy to read. There's a few simple typos, but nothing that wouldn't be easily corrected with a final proofread.
Images: 8 They are nice pics, they fit in with the article very well. Maybe a little on the bland side but I don't really hold that against (the subject matter doesn't exactly lend itself to exciting action or titillating erotica pics anyway).
Miscellaneous: 7.25 Averaged and whatnot.
Final Score: 36.25 It's obvious you've put some work into this and I feel a little bad I can't give it a higher score in the first two catagories. But you're an accomplished editor guy with the features and the awards and accolades and all the pretty girls chasing you around and such. I'm sure you'll get over it. Plus, you know, you can ban me if it makes you feel better.
Reviewer: OptyC Sucks! Icons-flag-us CUN 16:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects