Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Giant panda (2nd Review)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Giant panda [edit source]
I'm letting ChiefJusticeds do this one--DirectorWILLYOU 333 05:22, March 16, 2010 (UTC) DirectorWILLYOU 333 05:22, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
- OK, since Chief is taking a Pee hiatus, I'd like to do this one. Is that OK? (I'm actually not starting until I get the OK)
17:26, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
- That'll be ok. I made changes since Chief's last review. You can take a Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Giant panda look if you like--DirectorWILLYOU 333 17:43, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
Awesome. 24-36 hours.18:27, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
- That'll be ok. I made changes since Chief's last review. You can take a Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Giant panda look if you like--DirectorWILLYOU 333 17:43, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
Anyone can review this now. --ChiefjusticeWii 19:27, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I should learn to shut up when I'm busy. 19:36, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
Happens to me a lot--DirectorWILLYOU 333 19:43, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
Humour: | 4.5 | I apologize deeply for the low score, but I just didn't like it much. There were funny points where I got the joke, and I'm very glad for those, but like Chief said in your last review, they're not common. It seemed a bit strange, and some of the humor was pretty random. Here's a section-by-section overview:
|
Concept: | 4 | OK, so your concept was not bad. But your execution (and concept, for that matter) seem(s) sort of...all over the place. And the consistent parts weren't great, really. See the longer sections for more info, as I see no real way to not combine humor and concept. |
Prose and formatting: | 3 | I'll be blunt: there were a lot of mistakes. You really need a proofread, or to run this through Microsoft spellcheck. Spelling wasn't really your problem, grammar was much worse. Here's a section-by-section, with all of the errors I could see:
Endangered species
|
Images: | 6 | The images were good overall, however, their grammar issues dragged them down. Great images don't need a wonderful caption, (Although it would be nice if they had one!) but average images, like yours, do. Grammar problems are an especially big problem in captions, because people's eyes are drawn to them. Therefore, the grammar errors are easier to spot. In better detail:
|
Miscellaneous: | 4.4 | Yes, averaging and the like. |
Final Score: | 21.9 | Really, the only three things your article needs are grammar errors, consistency problems, and word usage issues. The problem is, it needs them badly. Seriously, if you had used better grammar, the ratings would be much higher, but that's because I'm an anally retentive grammar Nazi. With consistency, you made the panda sound scary and powerful in some points and only cute and cuddly in most. And word usage, the cases varied, but it was mostly words that made the article difficult to understand. Oh yeah, and run-on sentences. I hope you don't think this review is too harsh. I do like your article in general, but I think it needs some fixing. Sorry again about harshness. You can yell about it on my talk page. I also hope I didn't miss the point, because then I would have spent hours writing this just so I could look like a stupid dick. Well, anyway, good luck with the article. |
Reviewer: | 01:59, March 27, 2010 (UTC) |