Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Cardboard Box (2nd Review)

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Cardboard Box

Alright, second review. The [1]st one was really high and just needed a few adjustments that have been made so I just wanted one more opinion before I wrap this one up. Tagstit 10:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a-doing this. BlueYonder - CONTACT

I like the general concept and idea. I added a couple of extra jokes (if you don't mind) to it. I'm going to check again to see if the jokes can be improved, but until then, I give it a thumb(s)-up.

Thanks alot, I REALLY like the addition you have made to military use. Sometimes my wording can be a bit off. But ya thanks! --Tagstit 19:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

PrIP'd! Pee Review In Progress Checkit bitches, this review is as good as peed on. I'm marking my effing territory. Said article is being reviewed by: ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF

Humour:	8	Veryvery funny. I don't think I have anything to say about the humor of this article that hasn't been covered in the previous review, so I won't go too into it. I like the whole joke, making the cardboard box seem like the most awesome thing ever. Your introduction is quite comical, and makes for a good segway into your next series of jokes. "Modes" section presents a good number of jokes, and sets you up for even more. The three modes that you list are funny, simple, and inviting to the imagination. I can picture top scientists working out all of the aspects of the "Down" position, it's rather funny. The variations section sets you up for some great jokes, but you only offer me one. Stickers. I'm sure you could have talked a bit about tape or toilet paper tubes or something. But I don't need to go to far into that. For the most part, the simplicity is what makes it good. It's stupid, I like it.
Concept:	9	Yeah, like you really need me to tell you more about your concept. Actually, I'm going to. Your current concept is hilarious, don't get me wrong. But I just wanna tell you about another article I read a long time ago that was very similar to this. It was much more monotonous and boring in describing a box. "A box is usually made out of cardboard and has six sides. It is sort of brown. It can be opened and things can be placed inside." This could be funny if there were some kind of twist ending. Yours actually has something of a twist ending itself, and a very comical one. The military part is consistent with the rest of the article as far as humor style (good visual imagery, absurdism) and makes for a good way to continue the joke without losing your reader. Brilliant work.
Prose and formatting:	5	This is where I have a beef with your article. It just needs to be beaten repeatedly with a prosesteeq. As was mentioned before, sometimes a monotonous tone is helpful to an article. However, it seems like you're trying to go the promotional route. Right now, you're hovering a little over "encyclopedic". You need to pick one and go for it. To make your article sound more exciting and salesman-y, find more exciting phrases to insert, like "Incredible innovations such as..." and such. You get the idea. You need to pep it up if that's what you're going for, but you can't just add exclamation points to do so. The writing itself has to change. I think you should instead tone it down and make it encyclopedic. This would be easier to do, since you're almost there. Just take out any biased phrases and check out Wikipedia's thing on NPOV. I'd link to it, but I'm too lazy to do so.
Images:	7	Your images are above adequate. I like them all. Keep them where they are, keep all of those images, you're fine. Only way to get a higher score here is to show me something absolutely stellar. I wouldn't really worry about images, though.
Miscellaneous:	7.3	Averaged your scores.
Final Score:	36.3	You got yourself a great article, kid. I'm really impressed by how well you are doing without having any formal training in Uncyclopedery. I look forward to helping you feel at home here so that you might further your Uncyc career and write us more funny articles like this one. Let me know when you've made the edits you plan on making so that I may nominate this for VFH.
Reviewer:	—Sir SysRq (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)