Talk:3 Second Rule

link	score /50	user	lowest score	date	comment
Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Cajek/3 second rule	36	Modusoperandi	Prose/Formatting: 6	11/16
avg = 36 --- lowest = 6

Humour:	7	No LOLs (I'm easy to please when the mood strikes, but I'm not a LOLer)
Concept:	7	Food-based humour is a relatively unexplored niche.
Prose and formatting:	6	The sciency (not a real word) bits aren't sciency enough. Rather than "...they borrowed more money for a floor.", for example, try "...after their application for $400,000 for laminate flooring was approved by the National Science Council, the experiment could proceed." & "...it had no bumps, bruises, or bacteria." might be better as "...preliminary testing, including both visual and chemical analysis, concluded that the subject patty was virtually free of physical defects and vitiation induced by the stay on the ceiling.". Instead of "3 Hours (The 10,800 Second Rule), try "T+3hrs (10,800 Second Rule). Wow, this is a long paragraph. I make up for my lack of quality with quantity. Woo! Quan-ti-ty! Quan-ti-ty!
Images:	6	Pictures need captions. That's a rule that should only be broken with the written permission of a parent or guardian. Also, being all scientific, the page needs a flowchart or schematic (either a short one with actually actions, or an especially long and unrelated one).
Miscellaneous:	10
Final Score:	36	Good job, greatly improved over the original. (Remember when seeing my score that I'm an insufferable old coot. Also, dagnbit.)
Reviewer:	Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 05:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If I make the obvious correction of "3 minutes" to "3 seconds', will I get a hissy-fit comment saying that was on purpose funny?

No, 3 seconds sound more plausible then 3 minutes. So you should be fine --Nytrospawn 13:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whoa

Can't believe I never found this before now... love the concept of this article. -- Hindleyite Converse • ?pedia 15:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Hindley! Any suggestions?   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 8 / 15:45)