Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/You

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 19:33, July 24, 2009 by ChiefjusticeDS (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit You

The IC is done, at long last, review away, as is custom.

Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 08:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm here, should really make a template for this... --ChiefjusticeDS 19:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Humour: 9 Well, this article certainly is unique. With regard to your humour I thought that it was pretty amusing to read, though my head now hurts and I can see the word you when I shut my eyes. My only suggestion with regard to humour would be to consider the two sides of the "argument" more carefully. Obvious you intend the italicised voice to be the less convincing voice in the argument, therefore you could consider making the difference bigger for comic effect. If you intend the reader to be the proverbial punching bag then you could tone some of the responses down slightly so that the predominant voice can more obviously dominate the argument. This isn't really essential as the article is fine without it. You should also be wary of repeating yourself, even if it is for arguments sake, it would be a plus if the humour could be consistently varied. Continuously putting you in bold amused me, for reasons that escape me and the argument seems feasible, not much work needed here.
Concept: 9 A very good concept, you adopt an appropriate tone for both the arguing voice and the respondent voice and write well around them. I especially like the person's gradual descent into strange insults and general insanity as the article concludes, all I would suggest here is that you try and always have one person being "normal" and the other person becoming strange, as a couple of times, the difference between the two voices becomes less obvious.
Prose and formatting: 8 I worked very hard and found a couple of grammar errors in here but nothing to really get worked up over. Formatting is fine and text is well broken up into coherent sections, however if you are going to write in a comment-reply style then you need to stick to it, try and avoid having one voice respond to itself as occurs shortly after a break to a different section where the arguing voice has finished the previous section and then picks straight up again in the next, if this is intentional then try and make it slightly more obvious. Image to text ratio is fine.
Images: 10 Plenty of relevant images, not much to be said besides that they all work and compliment the text well. All the captions are done in an appropriate style as well and you are to be congratulated for successfully transplanting the tone to the captions. They are also amusing, which is always a plus. I can't really see anything for you to improve on here, besides making the first one slightly larger, just to draw the eye.
Miscellaneous: 9 My overall grade of the article
Final Score: 45 A superb article that is well deserving of recognition, very little to improve on here, an intelligent writing style coupled with the rage of an unhappy editor makes for a very good mix. Act on my points if you like, they aren't essential to an article that is already excellent without them. Well done.
Reviewer: --ChiefjusticeDS 19:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects