Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Cult of Apple, 2nd Go
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Cult of Apple[edit source]
Greetings, enthusiastic pissers.
I'd say this article is finally complete, thanks to the helpful images created by a wonderful user.
Tell me how it can be improved. I think it could use more links in the body of text, and I think the images could use better captions, but I'm at a loss as to what to make them. Everything else, I think, is pretty good. Sir Groovester | Contributions | Talk Page 23:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Forgot to mention the first pee review is here. Sir Groovester | Contributions | Talk Page 23:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
PEE REVIEW IN PROGRESS of giving you his opinion and pretending you care. |
Humour: | 6.8 | Hey Groovester! Well, the first review you got on this looked decidedly unhelpful, and this request has been languishing up here for almost a month. That's some fucking bullshit, isn't it? Let's see if I can help you out. Section-by-section:
|
Concept: | 7 | This isn't exactly an original idea: people have been mocking Apple fanboys for about as long as the Internet has existed. But the treatment here is fairly consistent and solid. This is definitely something you can work with. |
Prose and formatting: | 6 | There are a few problems with the prose. A few sentences don't make perfect sense, and there are just some jokes that aren't, you know, tight enough. Where you could tell the same joke in half the words, and it could be funnier. I'd take a good look through this thing, thinking: "Is there a way to make this same joke in fewer words?" Tight writing is the difference between backwater articles and features.
The formatting's acceptable, but there really is an awful lot of white space. You might want to look into ways to cut down on that. |
Images: | 7.5 | They're not bad. You did find two pictures of the Apple logo that look like religious icons, so that's cool. I think they're all sized a little smaller than they should be. |
Miscellaneous: | 6 | Eh, six? |
Final Score: | 33.3 | You've got yourself a solid article that needs a little spit and polish. I wouldn't vote for it on VFH in its current incarnation, but I wouldn't rule out voting for it after a little work. It's definitely worth doing some more work on this. Good luck! |
Reviewer: | 17:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC) |