Uncyclopedia talk:Pee Review/Guidelines

The Old Guide

Be nice

Many people will take criticism personally, it's better to offer friendly advice than a personality assassination over someone's hard work.

• Good: I think there are too many allusions to the book Star Wars vs. Spider-Man: The Ultimate Showdown that many people would not understand. Try to make the humour more accessible and it will appeal to a larger audience.
• Bad: What the hell is this shit? Whoever wrote this is clearly a fat virgin nerd who has never read anything in their life except some Star Wars crap and the words "Frosted Flakes".

Humour is subjective

Just because you find something to be unfunny or stupid, other people may not feel the same way. If something is not funny to you, make it known but don't be a condescending jerk about it (even if it feels like the right thing to do). In principle, a possible funny approach exists for every topic from the wildly offensive to the inevitably cliched (which is not the same thing as saying that every possible approach is perfect, of course).

• Good: In my opinion, the four paragraphs about Michael Jackson are not very funny and don't belong in an article about photosynthesis. The article would be better if they weren't there.
• Bad: You have got to be fucking kidding me. Michael Jackson? Maybe instead of Uncyclopedia you should try writing jokes for Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Help out if you can

If someone's article is poorly formatted, lacks images, contains Oscar Wilde quotes or just needs help, remember that you can take care of those things yourself. You might consider working with the author to make the article prettier instead of complaining about the formatting.

• Good: I fixed up your section header syntax and removed that externally linked picture. Also in the first section's title you had spelled "bizarre" incorrectly, and in the third section title the capitalization of the word "jackhammer" was inconsistent with that of the word "insertion". Perhaps you might consider include splitting the section on farm equipment into two sections as well. I can help you with that if you want.
• Bad: I can't even read this because when I do I instinctively smash my face against the keyboard at the sight of this absolutely retarded formatting.

---

Cajek and MrN9000 Give the page a good talking to

Cajek did some good initial work on the guide while it was still 'active' and it was then moved into a sandbox where MrN did some more work prior to the dialogue which begins below...

MrN9000, this is awesome, love the pictures. (HOW DID YOU KNOW WHERE MY CORNER IS???) Put it up there ASAP.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 7 / 21:17)

I spoke to Led about putting it up onto the "real" place and he agreed that it's best to just edit it in a sandbox for a while. He thinks the best thing to do is wait until its more finished, then make a post in the village dump. Let's do that eh? I will go into IRC now if you want to talk about it there... C you there? MrN 21:30, Dec 7

Scoring

Pro-7, Anti-5

1. It's easier to look at a field of green than a field of red in any case.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 7 / 21:56)
2. More room for what isn't a good article.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 7 / 21:56)
3. I can't imagine having 5 slots for what's a good article. That's too much pressure on the reviewer.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 7 / 21:56)
4. It's easier to explain how an article fails than one that doesn't. Explaining the difference between a 4 and a 5 in my system is slightly easier than explaining the difference between a 7 and an 8 in the 5 system.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 7 / 21:56)
5. A 50% is not passing in school, and neither should it be here, simply because people looking at their scores will make the connection very quickly.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 7 / 21:58)
6. It's nicer, usually, to see a "35" than a "25" on an article, and all scores are bumped up (see reason #1).   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 7 / 21:58)

My reasoning really

I think I get ya RE "encouraging" the average, but I'm consirned that we need the same amount of scope to judge what is good and bad above and below average.

If 6 is average then we have:

0,1,2,3,4,5 -- to judge the various levels of poorness below average

6 (average)

7,8,9,10 -- to judge the levels of greatness above average.

That's 6 ways of saying how bad you are. But only 4 ways of saying how good you are.

That's not right in my eyes. You should have the same number on both sides. MrN 21:57, Dec 7

Explain.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 7 / 21:59)

Hmm, interesting... The pressure on the reviewer thing is beginning to convince me. Maybe.

I think that a larger number of people than just you and me should discuss this issue however. I'm really a bit worried that telling people how to score is going to cause trouble. It does not really matter that much anyway. It's more what you put in the comment section which is important and useful. I don't think that we will ever be able to get a "standard" way of reviewing in terms of score as different people have different idea. Obviously you and I do. I'm not really that opposed to your 6 is average system. I can see the benefits of it. But the it's the wrong colour, or that's not the same as school argument is not convincing me. What goes on in school hardly seems relevant here. Your "puts less pressure on the reviewer" argument though, that does make some sense. We defiantly need to ask more people about this. Guess that can be done when we post this into the village dump. I suggest that we leave the "how to score" section for a while and concentrate on some other areas of the guide. We can sort the "whats average" issue later when more people have had their say... MrN 22:06, Dec 7

Why do we want "More room for what isn't a good article." ??? MrN 22:08, Dec 7

Uh, honestly, I don't like the village dump idea.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 7 / 22:08)

Because it's easier for the reviewer to explain what's wrong than how to make the article VFH. That's a lot of reviewer pressure.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 7 / 22:09)

Reviewer story: I think that when I started thinking "Yeah! I'm gonna make each article a winner!" reviewing became a very difficult task. Eventually I gave up on that idea and reviewing came naturally.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 7 / 22:10)

So 7 is average in your system? Maybe I'm not sure what average is... By average do you mean, relative to the average article on Uncyc? MrN 22:13, Dec 7

BTW, I don't mean to be hard on you. I can definitely see why 5 would be seen as average.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 7 / 22:14)

AVG?

We'd better stay away from defining "average". I was about to write out a definition, but I think it's an impossible task.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 7 / 22:15)

That's what I'm trying to say! If you can't tell people what average is, then is there much point in arguing the toss over weather 5,6 or 7 is average? It's cool though, I'm actually starting to come around to you way of thinking! I'm not sure this conversation matters that much though. A lot of people will want to have their say. You might have to debate this one for some time when we post this in the dump... Shall we leave the "score" issue for now and edit the rest of it? Don't go posting this anywhere yet though, we don't want to do that until its more polished elsewhere. MrN 22:18, Dec 7

do NOT put this in the dump, EVER! They cannot be serious there, plus they may just be insulting.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 7 / 22:22)

Balls to it (A British way of saying fuck this, homies)

Guess your away. I'm going to put your system into the guide and see what it looks like. I think it's probably better thought out than my 5 system... Let me fiddle with the words around it a bit and see what I can do... MrN 23:04, Dec 7

I love it when people copy me! I guess we should be as specific as possible on this. Thank you for agreeing with me, I was beginning to think I was crazy   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 7 / 23:12)

Time for a new tittle

What do you think about making a template rather like the "{{MOOU}}" which people find out about when they have bothered to read this guide? Might be useful... MrN 01:16, Dec 8

Also, what's with moving the top picture down? Did it not "fit" better where it was at the top? MrN 01:18, Dec 8

I'm thinkin, if a review is sub-par, we add a template to the review page which directs them here.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 8 / 01:33)

That's a good idea. I hear you, but it's a bit more controversial. I guess it's something to ask the admins about. Good idea though. I'm sure the "{{MOOU}}" idea will not be a problem though. MrN 01:53, Dec 8

I think we need to consider saying something about the different category's. What to put where etc. What should we say about the mis box? Do we recommend its use or not? I'm not sure about the concept box either, guess I have not done as many reviews as you, but will that stay fundamentally the same through the development of an article regardless of how much other work is done on it? I'm not sure what to recommend here. MrN 03:03, Dec 8

Humour:	10	We need this box, I think.
Concept:	9	You know what I like the Concept score for? I like it as a predictor of how good the article could do.
Prose and formatting:	9	Necessary
Images:	9	Sure
Miscellaneous:	8	Meh. People can use this box however the hell they want. We don't want to get rid of it, because we want them to have the option.
Final Score:	45	Your article is pathetic. See me after class, DINGUS.
Reviewer:	Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 8 / 03:10)

I know what the concept score is. I'm not sure how it will change as an article progress. I mean even if the article has only just been created, and put onto pee without really being started then would the concept score not be the same as if the article was polished and finished? What do we recommend? Should the reviewer disregard the state of the rest of the article when considering concept so long as the concept is obvious from what little work has been done. If so, we need to mention this.

Does this apply generally to each score? If the prose and grammar are perfect do we give a 10 for that, even if it has no pictures, and so might get 0 for pictures. If the pictures are perfect, but it's full of spelling errors do we mark down the pictures because of this? You get the idea of my question I'm sure.

Generally about the different boxes, I think we need to explain something about it does not really matter what you say in which box so long as you get your message across. Perhaps using a box like the one you just posted on this page is a good way of demonstrating how to use the boxes. My reservation would be in that we don't want to give an example of anything with only a few lines displayed in each box. That might give the idea that it's ok to just write a line or two. MrN 03:23, Dec 8

I think it would be good if we had a link to the 'in-jokes' category, I don't know how to put a link to a category page on without it just making the article part of the category, do you?... MrN 03:42, Dec 8

I agree: "it does not really matter what you say in which box so long as you get your message across." I'll put the category in. This guide is really really good.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 8 / 15:09)

Cool. I'm glad your enjoying working on it with me. I think it's going quite well. We complement each other quite well... In the process of witting the guide I mean! You have more knowledge of the actual Pee process than I do, and hopefully I'm adding a some useful stuff applicable to how I think the guide will actually be used. You think Led will like the piss take? That's one of his reviews on there... Is it a good example? I did not want to use a really huge one as most people will never bother to review in the depth that you do, I just thought that the one which Led did was a good one. MrN 15:30, Dec 8

Yeah, I'm really glad you added examples to the page, and for voting for my article.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 8 / 15:47)

I voted you your article cos it was good. ;) Hea, I just noticed that after adding the example there is now a "reviewed" category at the bottom... Don't suppose that matters really. Do you think we should submit this to pee review? That was a joke (of course). I think the article just needs a bit more work, then we can start trying to get some other people to look at it. It's not far of being ready I reckon... MrN 15:54, Dec 8

You know what...   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 8 / 15:56)

Forum Post

I figured I'd make a forum about this, so.... yeah. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:18, Dec 8

Well it's been made a bit more concise

If anyone still thinks this is too long, I suggest they make some comment as to how it can be made shorter. I think we need everything which is here. MrN 12:21, Dec 9

Yep, I agree.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 9 / 13:47)

{{PoisonPee}}

	Whoops! You have been given the Poison Pee Award
	Have you read the Pee Review Guidelines? FOR USE BY ATTENDING UROLOGISTS ONLY

	Whoops! You have been given the Poison Pee Award
	Have you read the Pee Review Guidelines? ________________________________________________ too short a review, 1.1 being a jerk

Template:PoisonPee

So, like we discussed briefly, I want to make a template for bad pee reviews that links back here. What should it be called, and do you still like that idea?   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 9 / 14:09)

• template:This Pee Sucks?
• template:Poison Pee?
• template:Red Pee? <- my favorite

Sure, I think it's a good idea. It needs to be done in such a way that it's not too insulting though... Just because someone has not bothered to read these guidelines we don't necessarily want to put them off doing another one... We just want them to read this guide can come back when they are willing to put some more effort in.

per the name... How about template:Salty Pee? - "Don't mean to piss you off, but your Pee tastes funny, and I'm having a problem swallowing it... Please go read the the Pee Review guidelines before you relieve yourself again." - Maybe with a picture of someone spitting out a drink in with a nasty look on their face?

I also like the Poison Pee, but maybe the Salty pee will work better? I'm easy on the name. Poison Pee or Salty pee is fine by me so long as we have something like the text I suggest.

In addition to this template do you think there is any benefit in making a template for users to put on their page when they have read the guide? At least then a user who gets a bad pee can tell the difference between someone who has not read the guidelines, and someone who has read the guidelines, but is just shit at reviewing... MrN 14:34, Dec 9

Actually, template:user:reviewread is a good idea. I like your suggestion for what the template says too. You're batting 1000 right now.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 9 / 14:37)

Cool. You chose the name dude. If your willing to make it, call it whatever you fancy! Guess the tricky part is finding a pic to go with the name... So long as the text is like I recommend I'm happy. MrN 14:49, Dec 9

How does that look? Feel free to edit it.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 9 / 14:51)

Looks good to me... Are you going to do lots of different ones or just allow the user to put some text into the box when the post it to give more indication of what the problem was? Too short a review? I think that letting the user add some text option might work best, we don't want to confuse things with too many templates... MrN 15:17, Dec 9

My programming-SKILLZ are above average, but I can't get the #if statement to work on templates that aren't text based.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 9 / 15:20)

I have never even made a template here, so I'm not the best person to ask either, maybe there is one around which we can copy? I will have a look... Do you know where this is one which works? I am a programmer (though I don't use java, it's more C/C++ for me) so should have no excuses. MrN 15:24, Dec 9

If you want to do that, you could try stealing some of the code from the ICU template. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 15:51, Dec 9

Thanks for the tip Led, will have a look. MrN 16:00, Dec 9

I got it! ICU was a good idea. It's now an official template.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 9 / 16:41)

Ahh! Grr! Looks like you beat me to it! MrN 18:07, Dec 9

The guide is appearing in Uncyclopedia:Pee_Review/Reviewed_Pee

Is that because of the example pee review in the guide? Maybe we need to make the example pee a bitmap to stop this happening? MrN 19:28, Dec 9

someone who knows what they're doing should copy the code directly from the pee review table template onto the guide so that the guide isn't in category:reviewed automatically.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 9 / 19:33)

Hmm. Grr. Like I even know where the templates are kept! OK. I will have a look. MrN 19:36, Dec 9

Poisoned Per Poison Pee

Maybe, if people are giving out Poison Pees for shortish pee reviews, you should explain in the guidelines that shortish pees are not allowed? Marshal Uncyclopedian! Talk to me!

Oh, sorry Uncyclopedian! ...well, you know now don't you? You can always redo your review. However, you have been adopted by Boomer. You should ask him if he likes your reviews.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 11 / 15:50)

It does not say in the guide that short reviews are not allowed????? Have you read it? MrN 16:08, Dec 11

My understanding is that poison pees are only for VERY short reviews anyway. It's basically a way of asking the person to read the guide, it's not for taking the piss out of someone who has read the guide, but done a bad review. MrN 16:15, Dec 11

Poison pee is not mentioned in the guide deliberately becuase we don't want everyone to know about it. It could be misused. Only people who have bothered to find out a little more about Pee Review will know about poison, pee, and so are then able to use it when they have an idea of how to use it. MrN 16:29, Dec 11

I have been looking through the guide again. Still no mention of length being very important. The only thing that could be taken like that in this is the example pee review, which is huge. And even that does not explain that pee reviews have to be long. Marshal Uncyclopedian! Talk to me!

If you consider that the guide says that it's fine to write a very short review that does not give the user any useful information, then I'm not sure how else it could be worded. Perhaps you could make some changes to the guide to make this more apparent? MrN 17:02, Dec 11

Actually, I'm pretty sure that that the whole guide says it needs to give useful information to the user. Marshal Uncyclopedian! Talk to me!

Then I'm not sure what you are saying. If it were possible to give a useful review with only one line per category then I guess size would not be important. I believe that it is implied that a reasonably long review will be required even if the reviewer only follows the items detailed in the basic section. MrN 17:27, Dec 11

What I am saying is that if the main problem is that the pee reviews are too small, then it should be noted in the guidelines that small pee reviews are not allowed. I know there are some people who can get a lot of information into a sentence, and I know that the problem referred to often is about the size of the review, not the amount of useful information in the review. Now, lets try to keep this talk page from becoming too much of a mess. Marshal Uncyclopedian! Talk to me!

Dude, your review was too short to be useful. Make it longer, and keep reviewing dammit   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 11 / 17:43)

What the point?

Probably VFD/QVFD (10) of the number on the end??? Why not just delete em all? MrN 16:17, Dec 23

What's the point oooffff....?   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 23 / 16:19)

The number on the end! The flashing thing! The thing you just changed!!! Do you want me to paint it red also? :P I really don't understand why it's there. The scores for each category are given independently of the others, so why give an example score for what the total would be if all other categories were scored the same as the one in question. MrN 16:40, Dec 23

Oh, okay Mr. N9VAGUE! I think the only reason to have it there, as opposed to having it not there, is so that we have more basis for these scores. Kind of useless, but it's a visual expression of what these scores could mean.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 23 / 17:16)

My reservation is that it implies that there should be some link between the scores in different categories, but hell. Who cares. Why am I even typing this? Dam, maybe I should give up... MrN 17:22, Dec 23

I didn't GIVE UP, and look where I am NOW... on a talk page.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 23 / 17:25)

Here a radical idea dudes

How's about we think about changing the importance of the Humour score? Maybe make it out of 20 and leave the others to be out of 10? Dam radical I know, but really no one cares about the other scores if it's funny. Any comments from the floor? Hell even I'm not going anywhere near the dump with this one... MrN 17:45, Dec 23

Are you mad, sir? Be quiet! I hope they weren't listening, or else the black helicopters are already on their way. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 17:48, Dec 23

{{Pee}}

You know, I really dislike this template. The "Miscellaneous" section was created for a reason, were things that don't go under the "Humor", "Concept", "Formatting" and "Image" sections go. Has anyone seen the endless end comments? Don't you think some of those comments could me moved into the "Miscellaneous" section? Or, maybe say something like "you're a good writer, and this is a good article, it just needs more" or "this has the potential to make VFH." Even those comments are more useful than simply using the Pee Template and nothing else.

As for the averging part, it doesn't even do a good job averaging the article. It underrates bad articles. For example, If I were to use the average on Penis tennis, the article would be 8.8 instead of 10. That means (according to guidelines) it would fall under the QVFD category when it was ICU. If Dr. Skullthumper used {{Pee}} on this review, the article would fall under VFH quality when it isn't.--Æ 15:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

*yawn* huh? Oh that thing. Before that thing that I made ages ago, scores were all over the damn place in that section, and the comments sucked too. At least now it has a purpose. Okay, back to... whatever I was doing.   Le Cejak • <-> Feb 10 (17:24)

Hea! We are back on this page! Oh, who's this "cajek" guy? Anyone know who he is? hmm... I'm not sure what you are saying AE. The fact is that lots of people don't know what to put in the mis section, but can use it if they want, but if they don't know what to put there, it's useful. It's a lot better than people making up a random score, or just putting 10 when they did not know what else to write. What's wrong with it AE? Plus, what should we do instead? (love you really cajek) MrN 19:08, Feb 10

*agrees with MrN* Also, ha-ha, you love a guy. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:15, Feb 10

When they love me, it doesn't count... that sounds incorrect. (I miss everyone, especially sexy, sexy Mr. N and Led... and all those other people!)   Le Cejak • <-> Feb 10 (23:09)

Any comments

On me latest mods about reverting vs resubmitting? I'm also not sure what we should say about the talk page of the article in question. Should we suggest that when the review is complete a copy be placed onto it, a link or what? Anyone? MrN 21:18, Feb 12

Looks alright as is to me. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:28, Feb 12

Rating

Shouldn't it be more

• 40 >> VFH
• 35 - 40 Nearly VFH
• 30 - 35 Decent
• 25 - 30 Average Article
• 20 - 25 Poor/Rewrite
• << 20 Bad/Delete

--Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 08:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that kinda what it is? The way I did it was to just multiply each # (1-10) by 5. The way DJ has it looks fine to me, I dunno.   Le Cejak • <Apr 11, 2008 [12:47]>

To be honest, I kinda like Cajek's scale a little better. The way he calculates it makes more sense with 7 being an average category rating. This scale would lead to much lower scores. sirsysrq @ 03:07 Apr 12

During the renovation of UN:PRG, me and MrN had a huge, long discussion about the number 7 as average. It took a while, but he eventually came around. 5 as average is too difficult. See the discussion   Le Cejak • <Apr 12, 2008 [5:44]>

1. see Uncyclopedia talk:Pee Review/Guidelines#Pro-7, Anti-5 (where I begin to explain 7)

2. see Uncyclopedia talk:Pee Review/Guidelines#My reasoning really (where MrN fails to convince me, I guess)

3. see Uncyclopedia_talk:Pee_Review/Guidelines#Hmm.2C_interesting...__The_pressure_on_the_reviewer_thing_is_beginning_to_convince_me.__Maybe.

Basically, Cajek pointed out that having 5 as average puts too much pressure on the reviewer, 7 as "Uncyc average article" is best... Oh, who said that? MrN 16:10, Apr 17

Review my product

bubblegum pop. DO IT!

The wrong place to ask: Congratulations, you found it! (also there's no page there) - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 04:36, Feb 15

Help please

Ok I must be blind, stupid, or unable to read English but... how do i ask someone to review a page, or where do i post to have a page reviewed. I can't seem to find anything about it in the guidelines. The page i want reviewed is FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. --The Dragon Lizard 16:53, July 20, 2010 (UTC)