Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Mr. Nice Guy
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Mr. Nice Guy[edit source]
I have revised the article greatly since the last two Pee Reviews, and have nominated it for VFH. I want to see if it's funny enough for a feature or if it still needs work. Thank you! 
PF4Eva, the President of Imagination Vote for me My tax returns 22:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sycamore is now pissing on your article, in the mean time plaese have this Coupon to pass the time--— Sir Sycamore (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
|
For a bumming session with Noel Fielding |
| Humour: | 5 | I have to confess I did not laugh once - and I'm very interested in music, and its history. They way you've handled the whole topic(s) leaves the article without focus, the various musical eras dealt with don't really fill out and generally humour value declines with this lack of focus. I myself have had a similar predicament with most if not all of the articles I've done - getting some focus here and maybe concentrate your parody on much fewer musical figures, and perhaps define the character you are creating. There are considerable amount of lists, which though acceptable on wikipedia within reason, here on this Wiki they are wholly unnecessary; and this adds a great deal of length and unfunny content to your article. Often lame allusions to "Dick" and stuff makes your articles humour very weak- a little more subtlety and concept development are needed to bring your readers in. Theres a lot of fluff, but real parody or satire - simply put "where's the beef"? |
| Concept: | 6 | There’s and interesting idea, application and eagerness for a feature I think have hampered your progress (just my thought here)- Obviously the best writers seem to be to make anything funny, the fictional license as well as a myriad of related topics mean you can in theory turn this article into a feature quality article. |
| Prose and formatting: | 3 | Very poor indeed, redundant images strewn about, not red links but plenty of lists with pointless links to 'Gay' and one off tacked on links that simply 'coould be linked' rather than a reason for them to be there. These are definatly something to cull, although you should link up to relevent articles. Often randomly cuts to different eras, fine but no contextual development and your idea gets lost in an attempt to cover a vast periods of musical history. The template at the bottom makes for a poor end to your article. |
| Images: | 6 | some alright ones, often very amateurish and will continue to detract from any kind of "professional" look or be a deserving feature. The sizing is all out with some absolutely massive ones and some little ones like the first one which has been made overly short |
| Miscellaneous: | 4 | HTBFANJS - I suggest reading this and having a read of some of these Uncyclopedia:Best of |
| Final Score: | 24 | I hope that you will continue to work on your article - remember developing focus is the key, don't just add stuff randomly |
| Reviewer: | --— Sir Sycamore (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC) | |