Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Fruit

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Fruit

This is a rewrite. Any help is appreciated. Thanks! -- 04:51, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Humour:	8	I think that this whole article is a big ball of joke, as in the entine thing is funny in itself, and then there are lots of other great jokes as you read this article. Let me explain what I am trying to say: the look of this article, as soon as my browser finished loading, gave me a small mental chuckle. As I realised what this was about, my appreciation grew and I mental chuckled some more. And then, as I got to real the article, I found the jokes in there, such as the Apple gags, and mental belly laughed. Basically, to me, this article conveys three levels of humour, which (correct me if I'm wrong) is a very good thing. Now that I've got that aside, I want to mention that there really are some very good jokes here, yet I'm not sure if jokes is the right word. It seems to me that, despite contradictiong myself, the whole thing is a wire mesh of jokes and development. So all the jokes add to the structure. But either way, this article is really funny, and that's why it gets an 8 (possibly even 8.5) in humour. (Oh ad PS, that oe last note after the fruit template really cracked me up when I read it.)
Concept:	9	The concept is brilliant. Just brilliant. One of the best thing about this is that guys and fruit have almost nothing to do with each other (or am I missing out on something?) and you've mashed them together. What further fuels this article is the couple's ineptness at writing this. Their conversation-like writing is a great idea/concept, very funny and orginal too, so yeah. 9.
Prose and formatting:	9.5	Prose, defined by Google as "ordinary writing as distinguished from verse", might not apply here. If so, screw prose anyway! The formatting in this article is just about perfect. It really is a simple, clear look that tells you everything and is even on-par with those guys's conversation. The Pee Review guide says: Is it written in an encyclopedic style? If not, are there good reasons for this? Well, no, it is not written in an encyclopedic style but there is good reason: to make way for the hilarious concept. Besides, there have been articles like this on Uncyclopedia and they're great; so is this one as a matter of fact. A few small nitpicks: There are one or two grammatical errors you need to fix, but nothing big. I know that the bold headers are supposed to represent that Johnathan wrote them, but maybe it would still be better to keep them regular. Oh, and Ipod should be written iPod.
Images:	7.5	The first image is OK; its perfectly suitable for the article. Same for the second and third infact. Hell, they're all OK images, but I gave you a scoree of 7.7 because they just sem the slightest bit dull' to me. But don't to a thing to change this. Lf I could add anything more it would be that maybe you could try and make the images a bit smaller?
Miscellaneous:	10	I gave the Mscore a 10 because the conversation, ie the core of this article, is brilliantly written, smooth, perfect. I'm not sure if this should go in another category but still, it's a wonderful piece of writing. You efficently direct these two guys from one point to another in a way that is both plausable and entertaining, and still feels Uncyclopedic.
Final Score:	44	In my opoinion, a really great article, maybe even VFH worthy. It needs a few very small touch ups but thats about it. Great job. PS, How did I do as a reviewer?
Reviewer:	EpicAwesomeness (talk) 09:55, May 2, 2011 (UTC)