User:Anton199/Pee Review

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For those who want to be Reviewers of the Month but have no idea about how to do the in-depth reviews or simply do not have any suggestions of improvements for the writer, below is the Pee Review that will work in almost any case. My comments are in square brackets and you only have to insert your signature at the end and the name of the article you are reviewing (well, it is actually me who has done the review) several times.

Humour: 6 The article is overally good, although you may disagree, of course. My personal opinion about it is that it should be more regular, i.e. have about the same amount of jokes in every section and have sections of almost the same length. Your humor is good but you get a bit tired arround the middle, although you seem to have plenty of ideas in the introduction [This is so in the majority of articles]. Another important thing is that you really have to write something relevant. If the topic of your article is [The article you are reviewing], then you do not have to switch the topic and begin storytelling. You could as well talk about Flying Spaghetti Monster! [Important! Don't use the last sentence if you are reviewing "Flying Spaghetti Monster"!]
Concept: 7 Your concept seems to be good, the only problem is that it is not very well developed everywhere. Sometimes, I find some jokes that show that you have wonderful ideas, but you do not develop them. Why? And, of course, you need a bit of a tidying-up. If you have nice thoughts about [Insert article name here], use all of them and use them sensibly and completely!
Prose and formatting: 5 Of course, you should always proofread your work and, although the amount of your mistakes is not critical [now, you have to hope that the author of the article does not have a mistake in every word, otherwise, he will understand that you are not reviewing his article]. There is encyclopedinss but the question is: "Is your article encyclopaedic from bottom to the top?" [If it would be so, the article would not be requesting a Pee Review]
Images: 7 The quality of images is stable but I should say that you are not using them in the most suitable way! [This phrase will always work, as the writer will never understand what it means]
Miscellaneous: 6.25 Average score for the article.
Final Score: 31.25 I hope to see more contributions from you in future! The article has some problems [Ideal articles do not exist], but they can be fixed [everything can be fixed], and so I stated all of the defects I found in the parts above [yes, sure, you did].
Reviewer: [Your signature]
Personal tools
projects