Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Garry's Mod (resubmit)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Garry's Mod[edit source]
After the first review I got, I took the reviewer's advice (made it more accessable), and I did some other changes, like adding some images for punctuation. I'd like to know if it's improved at all, and if not, how to make it better. :) --Crazee Boy, OMGLOL FURRY
| Humour: | 1 | Um, there has to be something I'm missing, it wasn't at all funny. Read HTBFANJS, even if you did already, it really helps you with writing. Also, I hated the quotes - to many, none of which added value. Again, I don't really understand the humor... see concept notes... |
| Concept: | 3 | I don't understand the concept, as I never played the game. I agree with Under user that this is really confusing, pointless, and sexcruft for the person who doesn't play the game. I hate sexcruft as a concept, but that is my opinion and doesn't change the article. Still, as the article stands, it is a pretty bad concept. |
| Prose and formatting: | 2 | Man, I really hate the formatting here. Part goes for the images (see image score) and the rest was the exstensive chat sections which not only weren't funny, but the ugly-ass formatting broke the codes. |
| Images: | 3 | Image:Breenjob.jpg was horribly formatted and should be split into four seperate pictures. All images need captions and good ones. |
| Miscellaneous: | 2.3 | Avg'd, sorry if this sounds harsh, see my end notes... |
| Final Score: | 11.3 | I personally think this isn't very good, nor has it improved, but it has the room for improvement. If you leave it in it's current state, this will likely end up on VFD |
| Reviewer: | -- 02:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |
Thanks for doing a review AE. Any reviews are always welcome. I'm not sure about your scoring however. These are the lowest scores I have ever seen on a seriously done review. According to the Uncyclopedia:Pee_Review/Guidelines this article should have already been huffed long ago if your scores are correct. Maybe you could take a look at the reviewing guidelines again? MrN 
05:30, Dec 16