Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Bondage Fairies

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Bondage Fairies

STParker 21:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in here, but feel free to review something else. Yes I do mean You. --ChiefjusticeDS 07:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	8	Alright, in my opinion you have some very solid work here,, you write well and have a good idea of where you want the jokes to go, you also avoid falling into the trap of continuously using gay jokes over and over again. However while your article definitely has enough to be more than boring and laborious it doesn't have laugh out loud quality. What you have top remember is that if you are making the subject of an article up then it has to be amusing enough to keep the average reader interested. I suggest you consider including a couple more sections early on, or just in general. You could include wrestler summaries to describe some of the wrestlers, rather than simply referring to them in passing, that is always a good tactic to use if you have made up the subject matter for your article.
Concept:	9	While the concept is not a groundbreaking epic of originality it does the job well enough and you have the writing talent to carry it off. Your tone is consistent throughout something which I have come to expect from you following your Al Franken article. Not much for me to say on this except to suggest that you reword the middle of the History section, while the joke is one of your more amusing ones it's tone is completely out of sync with the tone of the rest of the article. Editing this part is not of paramount importance as you would do fine on VFH with this regardless, thus the score. (More on entry to VFH below.)
Prose and formatting:	8	Your prose are OK as is your spelling and grammar, but, since I get off on saying it, why not recheck it in case you missed any errors before. You break up the text well and the article would not feel too bad if not for the lack of images... Which brings me neatly onto the problem here. The text to image ratio is a tad unbalanced (a whole lot : none). Think how the average uncyclopedian will react upon stumbling across your article at 3am right after his/her(?) favourite fizzy drink has run out; all they will currently see is endless prose and all that will happen is that they exit your article with nary a backward glance. You need to amend this, urgently. You need to get at least two or three images in here to sort the balance out.
Images:	0	Why?? Images, get some you must! Uncyclopedians need them so they can at least laugh at those if the text is not to their liking. This is why I'm not going to race over to VFH as soon as I finish this review to nom this article. I wouldn't recommend you consider doing so either, it is a crime to complete an article as good as this and not put any images in. Just Google wrestling (with safe search on) and you will come up with a wealth of images, if you can caption them humourously, choose AND place them well then you will be laughing all the way to VFH, and possibly a place on the front page. PUT IN SOME IMAGES!! Do you think I enjoy scoring decent articles lower than less than average ones?? NO! You have hurt me and your article, I hope you are ashamed.
Miscellaneous:	5	My overall grade of the article (I don't grade anything that scores 2 or less on any category over 5)
Final Score:	30	I like your article and I like your writing style even more, this article could be excellent, you just need to get the finishing touches right. Check your article for tonal consistency, maybe include some character bios and find some pictures, consult someone as to how amusing they are and see what happens. Good luck with any editing.
Reviewer:	--ChiefjusticeDS 08:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)