Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Great Britain/Colonization

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Great Britain/Colonization

Another colonization. I haven't read it but they tell me it turned out ok. Are they lieing to me again? As always, PEEING member only please.

Colonizers are:

Sys

Gerry

The Pope

Mahm00shA

MrN - Just join IC already!

Joe mama

TKF

The techno rabbi

Sonje - Thanks for the images, even if we only used one.

Socky

Some asshole

Thankees in advance! -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:28, 11 Apr

Uhh, just to throw it out there, I really didn't do anything. I added about 2 sentences and an Eddy Izzard joke, so I don't really feel like a colonizer. Yeah. Saberwolf116 03:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

'FROM THE DESK OF GUILDENSTERNENSTEIN'

I stake claim to this article.

(That means I'll review it eventually.)

—Guildensternenstein

---

Well, um, this is on VFH already, and, um, yeah. I mean, I'll still review it, but still. —Sir Guildensternenstein 04:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	9	Every single British thing ever, and yet it doesn't feel or get tired. Nice.
Concept:	10	Britain is a real place.
Prose and formatting:	9	No mistakes as far as spelling and grammar are concerned.
Images:	10	Rocket launcher sheep!
Miscellaneous:	10	Average-ish.
Final Score:	48	Fucking great.
Reviewer:	—Sir Guildensternenstein 05:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if this wasn't exactly an "in-depth" review, but a) it's already on VFH, and b) there's really not anything to improve upon. —Sir Guildensternenstein 05:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks, though next time I feel you should actually read the article before skimming it and checking off 9's for spelling and grammar. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 06:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother changing anything though, I just went through all of the article's prose and corrected as many of the dozens of egregious grammatical and punctuational errors that I could find. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 06:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I did read the article. Although, to be fair, proofreading isn't exactly my strongest point. Unless something is utterly and blatantly wrong, I'll likely miss it. In any event, it's a good article. —Sir Guildensternenstein 22:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, just looked at the page history, and there were a lot of comma-semicolon mix-ups, among other things. My bad. Although that doesn't really bode well for the half-dozen people who wrote the article and the dozen people who read it before I did that nominated it for front page, either. In any event, it's still a fucking good article, so whatever. —Sir Guildensternenstein 22:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)