Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Threads Of Our Existence: Excerpts From the Secret Writing Journal Of F. Scott Fitzgerald

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Threads Of Our Existence: Excerpts From the Secret Writing Journal Of F. Scott Fitzgerald

Resubmitting, seeing as how the last reviewer couldn't follow my instructions. To reiterate, I would like for a member of PEEING to review this article. If you are NOT a member of PEEING, then please do NOT review this article. Thanks in advance! =D ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 02:10 Mar 26

Feeling picky, are we? OK, I'll hook you up with one of my especial reviews. Treasure it, they happen to be very rare. You even get a fancy new review table that I made just for this review. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 15:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Kudos on your new Pee Table! As far as that coughing and hacking, if you had averaged the score, it would've been lower than you wanted, which means that maybe your scores were too harsh!

Also, just as a personal note, I usually review pages in a different order every time. Sometimes I start with concept, sometimes I go right for prose and formatting, sometimes I just punch in scores and average them before putting anything in. In short, this "updated" table was a bloody waste of time if you ask me. =D THANKS FOR REVIEWING ILY BOOMSTA ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 22:55 Mar 26

Concept, which must be the basis of your article if I'm using this template:	9	Because my assessment of the humor is somewhat dependent on what I say here, I decided to switch things up a bit. Hence, the new table. Cherish it. Anyway, probably my favorite thing about this article is the concept. I'm not quite sure why you decided to use Fitzgerald as the narrator, but watching him slowly go crazy happens to be greatly entertaining.
Humor, without a second u, because I'm American:	6	However, despite how much I like the concept, I don't think there are enough jokes in the article. Sure, the general concept is good enough to boost this score considerably, but I only spotted one or two blatant punchlines in the whole article, and only a few other more "subtle" jokes. Given the general approach to the article that's been used, I think some effective jokes could either be based on his random insane outbursts (like you used near the end of the article) or by having the narrator make subtle comments that seem perfectly normal in his crazy mind but are completely nuts to the rest of us. Also, the article does get better after the the first read-through as you get used to the writing style, but on VFH (which I assume is where this is headed) most people won't give the article more than a once-over before voting. This also brings me to my next little white boxy thing...
Your spelling and grammar, which probably sucks:	7	This was a hard score to give. While your grammar is almost perfect and I didn't spot a single spelling error, you picked a difficult writing style to use. While you do utilize the olde time "flowery" language well, it happens to be a very difficult style to maintain, as is evidenced in the article. I noticed that, within the paragraphs, the sentences tended to fluctuate between a (very well done, by the way) old-time style and a more, inadvertently modern writing style. And, even though the "modern" writing is still well enough done that a casual reader probably wouldn't be able to spot it, there is still a distinct lack of the poly-syllabic words that are prominently featured throughout the rest of the article. This is a hard problem to fix (especially because of the difficulty of spotting errors within your own writing), but it still might be something you want to watch out for.
Images, or lack of:	5	This was, by far, my least favorite part of the article. This is probably a difficult article to find pictures for, but the pictures that are there (excepting the cockroach (giggle)) have nothing whatsoever to do with the article. While randomness is the basic source of humor, I just don't think the pictures relate enough to the article for the captions to justify them being there. If you're looking for cockroach pics, you could try looking for horror movie scenes. Apparently cockroaches are somehow scary. Also, Oogie Boogie is made of bugs, if you want to use that as a sign of "insect intelligence". If you don't know who I mean, google it.
Miscellaneous, not averaged, despite what some would have you believe:	10	Ah, my favorite part of the review. In a controversial move that invokes cheers from some and death threats from others *coughCajekcoughcoughhack*, I do not average the scores to make this section easy. Instead, I use this section to cheat and manipulate the final score. I really enjoyed this article, and even though I gave a couple of low scores above, it doesn't deserve a low score. Therefore, I hereby give this article a 10-point booster shot. You're all right, kid.
Final Score, totaled, as most would have you believe:	37	I really did enjoy this article. At the state it's in now, it might even be able to survive VFH. However, I think it could still be better with some serious effort. Whichever way you go with it is your choice. It doesn't really matter to me, because as soon as I put in my four tildes I've done my review for the month. Toodles! (I skipped my review last month. Don't tell anybody.)
Me:	Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 17:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)