Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Autism (quick)
Autism [edit source]
Hairy fart-turd 05:05, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
|
This raptor is guarding this article while his master, Iwillkillyou333 is reviewing it. Be Careful! He Bites. |
24 hours or less, might not be quick--If you're 555 then I'm 
17:30, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
| Humour: | 3 | As I said before, the content is what is killing the article. While some know what they are talking about and have info on the subject (ex. there is no known cure), others seem to make something up. Also how the article was written it makes it really look unprofessional. My advice is to read over HTBFANJS and look up what people done wrong here.
Also, if an article is going to have, it has to go with the article itself. I do not understand the quotes, so they either have to be changed or be removed altogether. And in the See Also section, some things go along with the article; others do not, so it’s best to look over the article and keep what goes works and delete what doesn’t works. |
| Concept: | 8 | First, after looking at your contributions I can see you been here for at least five days, meaning you’re new, so welcome to Uncyclopedia. After looking at the article’s history, I see this technically no your article; you were, however nice enough to put this on Pee Review. So without any further ado I shall begin. Concept wise, this article could have potential, and the concept works, but because of constant noobs keep on messing with it, the content is what is killing the concept. Never less, the concept is good; the article itself is not. |
| Prose and formatting: | 4 | There are four thing I will discuss in this section.
First, obviously, would be spelling and grammar. The article has a lot of mistakes. It’s understandable, though, because this has been edited by a lot of IP users. So in order to fix this, you can either check it yourself, by reading the article and looking for obvious mistakes, use spell check on Microsoft Word (note: it may mark something correct while in reality it is spelled correctly), or, and I highly recommend third, put a Proofread template on the article, and someone from proofread would come over and fix these mistakes for you. Simple enough. Second, would be the strike through. I’ve been told it is overused and rarely funny, so I’m endorsing that. It may look cool, but in reality is just annoying. Unless the article was made that can make the strike through funny (though this is extremely rare) it will be best to remove them. Third would be the article’s tone. It drifts between an encyclopedic tone and a first person tone. I’ve been told this rarely works for comedy. If the article should stay like this, it should have a narrator narrating it. It requires work, but done correctly it’ll work just fine. Otherwise, choose a topic and stick with it. Fourth would be the Red Links. As you know, they lead to nowhere. Since they lead nowhere, they useless as well as very annoying. You will need to get rid of all of them. They serve absolutely no purpose, so you won’t need them. |
| Images: | 0 | None, so unfortunately I’ll have to give this section a zero. It’s a shame, because images for autism do exist, but nobody took the time to get off their lazy ass and put some in. Anyways, putting up images and/or asking people to make a Photoshop image for you can make the article look nicer and less dull. |
| Miscellaneous: | 3.8 | My overall grade of this article |
| Final Score: | 18.8 | I’m glad you managed to get this on pee review because this needs a serious rewrite or something like that. With my advice and HTBFANJS at your disposal, you (or whoever decides to fix this article) will save this article from damnation If you have any questions/comments, just go to my talk page and I’ll be happy to answer them. Good Luck! Cheers! |
| Reviewer: | --If you're 555 then I'm 03:36, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
| |