Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Ars Bandeet

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Ars Bandeet

Give me a good going over --OliverKnight 22:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Humour:	6	Overall, quite good. I did feel it was somewhat spoiled by the explicit references to dicks in the first paragraph of the Creative Years section, though. The humour of the article is very much geared to innuendo, and getting as close as you can to "rude words" and suggestive phrases without actually getting there. Also, some of the titles did seem a bit contrived - maybe you should spend some time cultivating ones that are a bit more plausible?
Concept:	5	Okay concept, and the article is helped by the fact it's done reasonably well as it's (except for the aforementioned references to dicks) done fairly subtly. Personally I don't think a concept based on an innuendo such as this will ever be the best article in the world... but the approach you've taken is quite good.
Prose and formatting:	8	The prose very good - very much like that of an encyclopedia, although I think it could use a little touching-up in places (for example, "...it was a sad end to a brilliant career" is quite a subjective statement, whereas something like "...this film marked the end of Bandeet's career" is more objective). Similarly, I think the overall factual tone can be improved, and though it might need a little polishing, it wouldn't be too out of place on, say, Wikipedia.
Images:	7	For an article this size, one picture is fine, and another one wouldn't be out of place either. As for the actual picture, I found it funny but I think it could be improved if you made all the text on the top and bottom look Turkish, with only the "Carry On" left in English.
Miscellaneous:	6.5	Don't think anything really goes here.
Final Score:	32.5	All in all, a good approach to the concept, just could do with a bit of polishing to give it a bit of an extra "encyclopedia" feel (which I also think will help the humour as it will give a greater contrast between the seriousness of an encyclopedia article and the silliness of the innuendo), and I think the references to dicks should be replaced with something a bit more subtle.
Reviewer:	JGDross 13:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)