Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/HowTo:Get Others to Do Your Work for You
HowTo:Get Others to Do Your Work for You[edit source]
An essential, but totally insufficient guide for lazy people everywhere.
I don't think I liked how this article turned out, but don't know how to improve it. Rigorous, overly critical remarks most certainly welcome. Sir Groovester | Contributions | Talk Page 07:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I remember you, mr. NotM! Here's an actual in-depth review. -- • <-> 15:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
| Humour: | 5.6 | Avg of all the sections.
Pretty good lead in. What is it missing? I don't think it's missing anything, in fact. I think that there's parts you should take out (like that part about how it might take more effort to convince than do, which adds absolutely nothing. Maybe if this was WHY?:Get others to do your work for you...).
Yes, above average. Short and clunky, but above average nonetheless.
Boooo! /Cajek throws a tomato at the stage. Short and, like you said in the article itself, a bad joke.
What? That was... weird...
Well, this section is made better by the previous section. If you merged the two sections, that would be much better.
Short. In fact, this entire article is underdeveloped. At least the article has an ending! Most I've seen today don't.
Yes, that's fine.
We don't need friggin' footnotes. We be smarts! |
| Concept: | 9 | It's a pretty good idea, actually. |
| Prose and formatting: | 6 | Meh. It looks "funny" if you know what I mean. Pictures in weird places, sentences just hanging there... all "funny" lookin'
 |
| Images: | 6 | I think you would've gotten a higher img score if the sections themselves were more interesting. |
| Miscellaneous: | 6.7 | avg |
| Final Score: | 33.3 | See my above comments. I think that this needs to be longer, like, way longer. This is your project so I'm not going to mess with anything, just add more suggestions on how to get people to do your work for you! I hope I did better this time |
| Reviewer: | • <-> 15:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |