From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
edit Reviews, dude
Yeah, man, so I'm like totally the most not on top of things person since fried toast, but you asked for inputs from... er, experts. And because I'm totally an expert and stuff, I'm here to, er, say stuff. Yeah. Because I'm an expert on reviews, really. I'm not just making this up. Like quotes and memes and whatnot, they're already done to death, dude. See? I... er...
...Sorry. In all seriousness, though, you're on the right track with your reviews and definitely doing better than most folks starting off, but you still need to be more in-depth - say more of why things are bad, what specifically doesn't work, what needs to be fixed and how. Don't just suggest a rewrite unless the entire basis of the article is hopeless - if the concept is workable, tell the author how they can perhaps work with it, what they have that already works with it and what doesn't that should be removed or modified, and/or what they would have to do with the overall piece. A good review generally involves specifics and overalls, and the worse the score a section gets (especially with humour), often the more will be said about it. Guidelines aside, though, you may actually find it more helpful to look at some examples - see what other people do in their reviews. Flamingo, Hyperbole and ChiefjusticeDS are particularly fine reviewers, and some of the steel kidneys (they're supposedly good, too) keep lists of their past reviews... might help.
And don't worry so much about the folks that check them, anyhow. So long as it helps the person that requested it, that's the important part, you know? Anyhow, hope this helps, and hope to see you doing more in the future. 18:50, 5 February 2011
edit I'd like to talk to you about Jesus
Well, it's probably in-depth enough; you do talk about specific problems and make suggestions on what the author can do. I would say there are a few things to work on for next time though. Most noticeably, you are a bit harsh, as you yourself seemed to realise. Luckily, the author has been around a while and has written a number of well-received articles, so the guy shouldn't be too upset. If he was a newer user it might have been more of a problem. It may also be worth proofreading your review in future because this one gets a bit difficult to follow in places. It also seems strange that you suggest the writer go to Chiefjustice for help with formatting. Although Chief is a wiki-genious and a man of many talents, I'm not sure why him, specifically.
I also can't help but think you might have slightly missed the point of the article. You criticise it for being about things we don't normally associate with Jesus, but that's kind of the joke. Naturally, if that's your opinion then you can't help that, but I would try to be more open minded and try to help develop the concept in place, rather than suggesting a new one entirely.
Ultimately, as long as you're getting better (which you are) I wouldn't worry too much. Hope you don't find this absurdly long paragraph as boring to read as I did to write.
I have a quick swing by, I can see the article has been much changed and improved. I think you need to explain how Joan of Arc got to or was in Orleans when the siege began. You introduce her in the narrative without explanation. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 14:48, March 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Glad to hear it! Also new messages go at the bottom please. --Black Flamingo 23:31, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
Nice article, here's the Pee Review, feel free to come back at me for help :P Mattsnow 23:27, February 13, 2012 (UTC)