Talk:Oodles

From Pee Review

Humour:	4	Oh wow... this is um.. random. Parts are funny, but enough is not that the funny gets lost at times.
Concept:	3	This subject begs for randomness, and while you started well, you just kinda degerated into oodles and oodles of jokes, many of which had nothing to do with how you started the article. Some of it was funny, yes, but too much was not (as is often the case with random humor).
Prose and formatting:	7	Few red links: which is good. Paragraphs look good: also good. A list or two: not good.
Images:	8	The images were good, and one or two of the captions were great, in fact, but the pictures unfortunately had to mirror the content of the page, which was very random after about the first fourth of the article.
Miscellaneous:	4	I really think this article has a lot of potential, despite the difficult subject matter. My advice to you would be to find a theme to wrap the article around, make the jokes a little less scattered, and focus on a theme to warp your jokes around.
Final Score:	26	I'm honestly surprised the article was as good as it was given the difficult subject you chose to write on. I think you're doomed to randomness unless you can find a central idea (or hook) to wrap your jokes around. It's funny in places, but the jokes are scattered like bread crumbs in a rather large pond, and our readers are often too lazy to go swimming. I think with a theme and some editing to get your oodles of content under control somewhat, this could actually be "the good stuff."
Reviewer:	--<<>> 05:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

From Pee Review

Yes, I know this has already been reviewed. However, many changes and improvements have been made, and I'd like feedback before I try to get it nominated for the front page(possibly, I doubt it).

Humour:	8	Very funny despite still being very random. Seems more consistent than last time though. I'm impressed.
Concept:	8	Brilliant concept of "oodles". You've got great potential, young Anakin.
Prose and formatting:	5	You've got the basic formatting down, but there's still a few minor errors. It goes straight from quotes to the contents tab and a sub-section, which is a no-no. Also, you need some links! Look at how the standard Wikipedia article is written. Basically, that's the formatting we're looking for. Check this out for more information on formatting.
Images:	8	Images are great, but could be a bit bigger. Captions are funny though. Good job.
Miscellaneous:	7	It seems a bit sketchy. The template in the middle seems misplaced, and the quotes are sort of "eh".
Final Score:	36	Needs a tad bit of cleaning around the edges, but after that, I think it just might make it to the front page. If you'd like, I could fix the formatting and stuff up for you a bit or tell you exactly what to do to fix the formatting on its talk page if you'd like. Just let me know.
Reviewer:	--EMC [TALK] 01:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)