User:Mrthejazz/guidelines for giving me criticism

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Writing on Mrthejazz's talkpage is a mechanism for correcting Mrthejazz's poor editing abilities and as a way to get him to shut up. Writing on Mrthejazz's talkpage is a valuable resource for him to get constructive feedback on the constructive feedback he gives to articles. Since it's such a useful tool, (although strictly for mrthejazz alone), it has massive potential for abuse. Don't be the guy everyone has to like for being nice to him. Basically, Please be mean and stupid, and try to keep everything distorted--all criticism is subjective, but Mrthejazz doesn't have to know that. Who knows who he's pissed off? Do take offense at his crap, and do be offensive, and remember that it's all for the good of your article.


The idiot couldn't even come up with his own picture.

edit Submitting Poor Reviews (If you happen to be Mrthejazz)

Before you submit your poor review, make sure it sucks first. Put in no actual effort during a review--Mrthejazz isn't here to write anything of value, just to berate people and annoy honest article submitters. Review your pages using that handy box left by the user who applied for a review, and type out anything you think would utterly break the spirit of collaborative humor creation in the writer, or any specific things you'd like them to do involving a rope, a gun, or a bathtub and a toaster. Hit save page, and be ready to get banned. It could be a day or it could be three weeks before people realize your maliciousness. To move things along, do a review for someone else--this increases the ire against you, increasing your odds of being banned.

Once you get a review, be open to criticism. If you don't want to hear that your review isn't perfect, don't submit it. Take criticism seriously and be ready to become belligerent at anyone who dared to say anything about what you wrote about something that somebody else wrote. You want it to be obnoxious, right? If your review was particularly hurtful, the reward is always much deserved. If you get a nice sprinkling of constructive criticism for your criticism, just make an enormous time wasting parody page of PeeReview (if it's really nice). Be wary, though, that you might be complimenting someone by saying that their reviewmanship is great. If you don't appreciate the criticism you just got, do take it to the admin's talk page and start a flamewar - ask an admin to "eat an enormous pile of ass" (UU is a nice guy, so try flaming him).

Once you've ignored everything the admin mentioned or want to bother them further, recreate your review entry and put "(ignoring you, lalala)" after the review's title.

edit Removing a Review (That Mrthejazz wrote)

Just like writing reviews, Mrthejazz has pretty much one style of reviewing and even though there is no 'right or wrong' way. If you put no effort in, and give crappy advice your contribution will be very welcome.

Writing a genuinely terrible criticism of a Pee Review is an easy task. Just like doing a bad peer review, doing a bad criticism of a bad Pee Review takes little time and effort. Everyone will be grateful if you just give insult Mrthejazz's mother and explain why you think he's adopted.

edit The Basics

Urinating fountain

Again with the ripped off images. Sheesh.

Be a dick. Reviewing is easy, and it's easy to shoot Mrthejazz down. Please make him feel like crap. Mrthejazz is masochistic - Please, don't try to be encouraging, even if you think the review is ok. Please make the criticism about Mrthejazz. Try insulting the size of his balls. It's fun. You're not critiquing "Mrthejazz's" review, you're criticizing him as a person in his fundamental essence. Point Mrthejazz towards HTBFANJS and UN:BEST, as a way of mocking standards that he will never be able to attain, and always try to find something negative to say about their article, however simple as that may be - harsh medicine is easier to take with the spiritual absinthe that is criticism.

The review review categories work like this:

Humour: 7 Probably the most important, review-review wise. How funny is it? Why is it funny? How can it be funnier? Suggestions for which underworld to travel to and exaggerations of specific problems are very helpful.
Concept: 9 How good an idea is behind the review? Is it original with lots of potential? Could the concept be expanded and in what way?
Prose and formatting: 8 The writing style, spelling, grammar, layout and overall appearance. Is it written in an snooty, self-important style? If not, are there good reasons for this? Does the voice offend?
Images: 5 How are the images? Are they shamelessly entered in the middle of the review, with poor quality and formatting? Are the used to further mock the writer of the article?
Miscellaneous: 7.3 Either use Template:Pee to workout an average for you ({{pee|7|9|8|5}} in this case), or give a score to compensate for the review's overall quality--something that can't always be assessed by the previous numbers alone.
Final Score: 36.3 Overall summation. How horrible is it and what are the most important areas to insult. Try to sign off with an disparaging comment - it can help to increase drama and encourage the author to continue being a dick.
Reviewer: Please sign using the normal ~~~~

Your score for each category should be considered in whatever way you damn well wish. If the review is riddled with spelling mistakes and terrible pictures, but still made you wet you pants laughing, it can still gets a 0 for humour. Likewise if it's a brilliant idea, but has not been well exploited you should still give a low score for concept, solely because Mrthejazz wrote it. It is absolutely necessary to add comments based on your low score, to tell Mrthejazz why you scored it that way, as well as to convince him that this shit isn't funny and he seriously needs to stop.

Scoring works like so:

  • [10]==Brilliant. No mistakes. (50 Never give one to Mrthejazz).
  • [9]===Way above average: probably VFH (45)
  • [8]===More than adequate: might be VFH (40)
  • [7]===Adequate, the average article (35)
  • [6]===Nearly adequate (30)
  • [5]===Inadequate. Might be Rewrite. (25)
  • [4]===Might be VFD/NRV/Rewrite (20)
  • [3]===Probably VFD/NRV (15)
  • [2]===Probably VFD/QVFD (10)
  • [1]===Probably QVFD (5)
  • [0]===Your review of Mrthejazz's review should probably be somewhere around here.

It is obviously very difficult to judge what 'adequate' is as what one criticizer of reviewers may consider average will be different than another. When starting to prune out reviews for the first time consider taking a look at some removed reviews which have been already been done and try to find what appears to be a consensus between them. Over time, as you become more experienced you will become better at criticizing reviews. When in doubt, give an extremely low score.

Remember that what is written in the comments section is far more hurtful than the actual scores you give, but be aware that most users take the score seriously simply because they are the most objective part of the review.

edit Intermediate Reviewing


This is an example of a bad Pee review, and not just because User:Mrthejazz wrote it.

Once you have the basics it's time to consider some more subtle issues.

edit Be Specific

Try to give examples of what exactly it is that's troubling you, whether it be content, grammar or whatever. Tell him exactly why he's a rabbit-fucking, mouth-breathing, dickless, poopoo head.

edit Grammar and Spelling

If you see glaring errors in grammar and spelling, try to be critical of them. Writing is difficult and requires practice, but in this case the little bastard has it coming. Give a rough outline of his problems. If you can't find a pattern in their mistakes, tell them he just utterly completely sucks. Usually, that's enough to piss him off. You can always point out some of the errors yourself if you wish to, or add the {{proofread}} template to get someone else to do it. For more specifics, see the section "subtleties".

edit Give Nonsequiturs/Bullshit

Encourage the use of lists and excessive randomness--unless, of course, the lists or randomness are funny. Instead of just saying that something sux, it's much better to give useless nonsense of your own masquerading as suggestions which could make things all the worse of a clusterfuck. Two heads are better than one, especially if one of the heads is berating Mrthejazz, or annoying him with useless rambling that has nothing to do with his review.

  1. Jelly: Did they explain the jelly of the thing they're talking about?
  2. Porcupines: Did they talk about important porcupines involved?
  3. Gameboys: Does anybody still own one?
  4. Poop: Why do monkeys like it so much?
  5. What if?: What if the average person tried doing this?
  6. How?: Can you see how annoying this is?

"Hello, I'm Oscar Wilde. Why are you killing my soul?" -Oscar Wilde on why you are killing his soul

edit Encourage In-Jokes

See Category:Uncyclopedia In-Jokes

Uncyclopedia has many in-jokes that are often intolerable in many reviews, so they are an excellent way to torture Mrthejazz. You should know them, and violently encourage their use as a way of annoying him. The most common ones are quotes from Oscar Wilde, Russian Reversal, and Chuck Norris, as well as references to Kitten Huffing. If you see one of these jokes, make sure that Mrthejazz hears it. For example, Oscar Wilde was a brilliant, insightful man, so if someone is using a Wilde quote, make sure that it's something which he might actually have said.

edit Formatting

Is the article 'ugly'? If so, in what way is it ugly? Does it have large blocks of unbroken text or eleven paragraphs in a row that are one sentence long? It may have too many pictures, or too few pictures, or very few links to other articles.

It might be evident that the author of the article was not aware of some basic formatting skills which make articles look nice. If you think this is the case, consider formatting a small section of the article to show them how to do it.

How many sentences in the article are between 10 and 20 words long and consist of two or more clauses separated by a comma? How many are less than 5 words long? If most sentences in a piece have the same general length and structure, then the piece often feels dull. Very short sentences can be a delightful seasoning in prose, and short sentences are often strong. They have impact.

edit Pictures

If you feel that the number of pictures is fine, comment on the pictures themselves. Very rarely are pictures themselves the problem unless they don't match the article itself, or are there for no reason. Occasionally, you may see completely unacceptable pictures, but this is very rare... damn noobs don't know how to upload images! Except in special circumstances, there should not be a picturespam gallery (<gallery>). Make sure that most pictures are thumbs of an appropriate size, with a humorous caption.

edit Advanced Reviewing

UnNews New thing called wheel make move mud less hard

Advanced reviewing good. Moon God pleased.

When you have considered the above you might increase the usefulness of your review by commenting on the following.

edit Concept

This is the hardest part of Pee Review to score. Here are a few tips:

  1. Many different unrelated ideas jumbled into one article is generally not a good thing. It's best if there is one core idea behind it.
  2. Don't score on how funny it could possibly be. The fact that Jerry Seinfeld could make it brilliant is not important. Jerry's not here, and if you have to give a "potential" score for that article, make sure it's for that writer based on the rest of the article.
  3. Are you jealous of the idea? If so give concept a high score.

edit Tone

Is the article written in a tone of voice appropriate to the context? Is it too angry, too passive or too boring for the concept? If so, let them know.

Worlds first hard drive

The reviewertron is running at full capacity!!!11!eleven

What style is the article written in, and has the author made it work?

  1. Sarcasm: A sarcastic person over the interweb is difficult to distinguish from a complete idiot. For sarcasm to work it usually has to be way over the top, unless it's obvious.
  2. Deadpan: Ever seen Superbad or Arrested Development? That's what deadpan humor "is". For it to work over the internet, it has to be somewhat out of the norm because the internet doesn't carry facial expressions or the tone of voice (yet).
  3. Parody: Parody is very difficult to pull off. The reader has to know the actual subject matter, then notice that it's parody as well as find it funny. Is it likely that most readers will be able to do this with the article in question?

edit Person

Does the article switch from first to second person without explanation? Is it disconcerting for some reason? At this point, bring to bear the article's direction. Who is it talking to or about? Is it breaking the fourth wall too much, or unexpectedly? This part of reviewing takes a lot of stamina.

edit Subtleties

If a joke falls flat not because of it's poor grammar and not because the joke isn't inherently funny, then something else way more complicated is going on. Usually, these type of errors are found in specific sentences, so they're easier to fix than tone and person. Look for these problems:

  1. Punctuation Matters: If a comma is in the wrong place, or if there are too many, the flow of the joke can be messed up. Commas should be used to separate 3 or more items, not 2.
  2. Emphasis (Italicization/Bolds): Emphasis should be used sparingly, but it should probably be used once in most articles. If a joke has an exclamation point at the end, the joke is usually ruined (unless it's absolutely hilarious). Same with italicize and bold.
  3. Starting a sentence with descriptive clauses prior to introducing the subject is usually not appropriate. "Hasbro, the childrens' toy company" is better than "the childrens' toy company, Hasbro".
  4. Blocks of text are not wanted. Make sure that there are appropriate breaks for the reader, and that each paragraph focuses on a single general topic.

edit An Example Pee

Below shows a well done pee. Note that the reviewer has given genuinely useful advice as well as pointing out problems.

Humour: 7 Pretty funny, but I think it could be even better, if you work on it. I highly recommend HTBFANJS, I read it every time I write something, and it really is great for ideas and tricks to get a quick laugh. Also, make sure that whatever you intend to be funny is very clear. For example, in this line: "wearing nothing but a shirt, tie, shoes, socks, underpants and a three-piece suit", I think you're trying to insinuate that Darwin was wearing no pants, right? If so, make sure that it's very clear; the sentence you have there is somewhat confusing. Other than that, really think about what you want to be funny. Make sure that everything you write has some intent, and try to know why something you write is funny, so that you can be sure that it is.
Concept: 8 I find myself enjoying this concept very much. It has a lot of potential for satirical humor, but I think you could exploit this a little better. Personally, I'd like to hear more about how Darwin is "the second-coming of the atheist messiah". It just felt to me like you got off a track a little bit. Try to really have an idea of a direction you want a page to go in, otherwise you run a risk of becoming a little bit irrelevant.
Prose and formatting: 6.5 Mostly ok prose, but could be better in a few places. For example, look at this sentence: "Akin to claims of arrests being made to question people." That's a fragment, and I'm unsure as to what you mean by it. Remember that writing comedy has to be spot on--if you've ever told a joke or watched a stand-up comic, you know that comedic timing and delivery are everything. Writing humor is exactly the same, but harder, so don't be afraid to use plenty of commas, boldness, and italics to get your delivery to the point where it can only be uninterpreted one way--the way that you want it to be interpreted.

Formatting is good, although you may want to italicize your "quotes".

Images: 7 Your images, though relevant, could be much funnier. Don't be afraid to use the captions to insert a joke, they're great for one-liners.
Miscellaneous: 7.1 Avg'd your score, via {{Pee}}: {{Pee|7|8|6.5|7}}
Final Score: 35.6 Basically, the page is solid and stands on its own, but with a little more tuning up, a little pruning (don't be afraid to delete stuff from your own page), it could become a prime Uncyclopedia UnNews. Just read through it slowly, with a critical eye, and try to fix everything. Good luck.
Reviewer: - SomeGuyWithNoLedInHisPencil 01:01, April 1

edit Conclusion

It is (of course) up to you to decide how to go about doing your Pee Reviews and all of the above should be considered guidelines and, like Wikipedia guidelines, can be ignored if they get in the way of good reviewing. So long as your intentions are good and you put a reasonable amount of effort into the process the submitter will be grateful. Users will probably find your reviews the most useful when you offer alternative suggestions for how things might be done rather than just highlighting mistakes.

Thank you for reading this guide. Now what the hell are you still doing here? Go and review something you lazy bugger!

edit Thank you for the very pleasant matter in which you utterly demolished my review :)

Hi ChiefJusticeDS, first of all, I always appreciate it when somebody is left to do a job that is generally going to make somebody unhappy, (such as the demolishing of a review or perhaps article, whatever the case may be for an admin such as yourself), and yet is able to do it in a positive, uplifting way. However, upon checking your recent statement explaining the removal of my review, I noticed that it fell below the standards I expect for criticism of my criticism. If you aren't sure what such criticism should look like, take a look at my guidelines. You may also find it helpful to take a look at this well-deserved slurring of personal insults to see the kind of thing I'm looking for. Thanks again for pleasantly obliterating my review, and hopefully I'll see you utterly bashing my user talkpage to death in the near future. It's Mrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 04:58, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Personal tools