Talk:Art That Looks Like Nothing
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Pee Review[edit source]
| Humour: | 9 | I would do a complete breakdown section by section, but honestly, the humor in this actually worked for me really well throughout the entire article, with possibly the exception of the very end (it sounds a little bit stiff and forced). However, it was a very amusing critique of the subject, and I greatly enjoyed it. |
| Concept: | 9 | Abstract art has been asking to lampooned for a long time. This is a considerably better article than the Abstract Art, and it's a well executed concept and your invented background is suitably clever. |
| Prose and formatting: | 6 | The prose works well in general, however, there are some parts (such as the last sentence) that sound a little bit awkward and forced. I noticed that you mostly avoided using contractions, which is a little bit awkward sounding sometimes. There are also some commas in funny places ("many artists that produced art that looked like nothing in the war, began to reap the benefits") but it's nothing that couldn't be solved with a quick proofread. Besides the odd skip in the concluding section, the formatting looks pretty and works well. |
| Images: | 10 | I had no problems with the images whatsoever. They're good examples for your point, and the captions work well. Nice. |
| Miscellaneous: | 8.5 | Averaged |
| Final Score: | 42.5 | I actually really enjoyed this. Fix up the prose a bit, maybe think up an ending that flows well with the rest of the page, and you have an excellent article on your hands. |
| Reviewer: | --mrmonkey72 22:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC) | |