Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/HowTo:Really Piss Admins Off
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
HowTo:Really Piss Admins Off[edit source]
- 21:02 31 MarchSir FSt. (QotF BFF NotM) YTTE
LOL I CAN HAS REVIEW?? ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 21:10 Mar 31
|
PrIP'd! Pee Review In Progress Checkit bitches, this review is as good as peed on. I'm marking my effing territory. Said article is being reviewed by: ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF |
Graah, sorry I took so long. Been real busy lately. I'll try to make this good. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 23:08 Apr 2
| Humour: | 6.5 | Alright, I think it's a good idea to start with a very general look at this article. I'm really torn about this score (I rarely give non-integers for a score so feel lucky if you want) as far as whether or not it was a 7, which is considered adequate by Cajek's scale. I don't know if I want to call this less than adequate, but it's just not quite there to be honest. The reason you're not just getting a 6 (yes, I'm going to account for a fraction of a point) is because this is a common frame of mind for someone who is still new to Uncyclopedia. You're not very developed as a humor writer yet. You find this whole Uncyclopedia thing to be hilarious in and of itself. This is not a bad thing, this just means that the kinds of things you're going to find funny are going to be things that the rest of us have already finished laughing at a year ago. You make many references to our in-jokes, something we tend to discourage unless it is REALLY effing funny. I'll be frank: you're just not experienced enough to do that. But that's not to say that you're not really funny for a noob. Every once in a while, we get some noob who just blows us away with his witty articles right off the bat. But most people (including yours truly) just come to this website and write some not-so-great articles for a bit before they gain enough experience to start writing great stuff. I'd say you're taking the right step by getting this reviewed. You have some good stuff in here, like when "Tom will think he's struck Gossip Goldmine." Some of this stuff is worthy of a grin, and fewer still catch the reader by surprise so as to merit a chuckle here and there. But overall this is not too remarkably funny. Your goal should always be to make an article remarkable. That is why 7 is only adequate. |
| Concept: | 6 | I think that I already talked a lot about the concept in the above section, but I believe that these two categories are very much connected. The idea here isn't too strong. This is why your score is lower here. But it's not considerably lower. Regular users may find this entertaining, however random users just strolling through may not understand it (since they probably haven't heard of our buddy Leddy before) despite this being a namespace that sees less IP traffic than regular mainspace articles. In the future, try to write articles on topics that people who have never even heard of Uncyclopedia will find entertaining. Think about it this way. If you were to try and explain this article to your friends/parents/pet, they would have no idea what you were talking about. You would have to give them a lot of backstory in order for it to be funny. Write about something everyone has heard of. That's not to say that you should give up on this article, it can still be improved with some help. |
| Prose and formatting: | 6 | Once again, this is just less than adequate. You seem to use commas sparingly; don't be afraid. Those little guys are your friends. You need to reevaluate your sentence structure in some areas. This is a lesson I have to teach to newcomers on a regular basis: you have to know something about proper English to be a humor writer. I'm not trying to say that your grammar is bad or anything. It's pretty good, and I can see that you're going to be a great writer as soon as you get a little bit of experience under your belt. But in general, you need to maintain a didactic tone for an article to have an encyclopedic flavor to it, which often makes it much funnier than throwing an F-bomb around outside of quotes or articles about fucking. The last thing I wanted to touch on in this section was that monster quote at the beginning. I'm tempted to say just ix-nay the entire thing. But since it would be hard to find something else to make a good opening paragraph, I would just say condense it down a bit, or just chop it off after a couple sentences. Either way, something has to happen there in order to appease the Uncyclopedia gods. |
| Images: | 5 | Actually, I don't have much to say about the images other than that you need another one. Two images are fine for an article of this length, but an article with semi-adequate images like those needs an extra image, preferably a nice edited one. I can't think of any good ideas right now, but then again it's not my job to give you ideas. I just offer suggestions as to what to change, right? |
| Miscellaneous: | 5.9 | Averaged the above scores. |
| Final Score: | 29.4 | This is by no means a great article. But it's not bad. You've been very productive since you got here, an attitude evinced by your equally eager username. You're doing some good work, and already getting some great experience. Put up some more articles here. I can't promise that I will personally get to them, but we've had some great reviewers as of late and I'm sure someone will get to them. I hope this has been somewhat helpful. Good luck editing! |
| Reviewer: | ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 23:08 Apr 2 | |