Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/My Page (resubmit)

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

My Page

Brainspew 17:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll take this one instead. That last review was dreadful. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 17:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Concept, which must be the basis of your article if I'm using this template:	7	Congratulations, you get the privilege of being reviewed with my super-special customized Pee Review template! All that means is that concept is above humor on this one, but it's still super-special. I use this template for those special articles that are entirely based on concept, and lo and behold, yours is one. I think the "this is not your _______, so GTFO" angle has been done before, but I like they style of this one. Not like that has anything to do with concept, but bonus points anyway!
Humor, without a second u, because I'm American:	6	This is where the article is lacking most. There are a few great jokes in here, and I enjoyed it more than I had expected to (having not known of you and all), but they're simply too far and few between. There are jokes scattered throughout the article (except for the lead paragraph. For shame.) but most of them are either clichéd or too elaborate. Because this is written in the first person, the entire article needs to be something that a person would feasibly, naturally say. For parts of this, like the second "journal entry", it's simply not realistic. The joke has foreshadowing that, while presented in a semi-realistic fashion, wouldn't really be present in a journalistic space as "my page" evidently is. The meat of the article, when the narrator notices the reader... well... reading, is mildly more realistic but still deliberate. The article indicates that you can definitely fix these mild problems with some effort, and it will be all the better for it. Upon a second look, I've actually noticed more original jokes than I had originally thought (I refuse to go back and change previous comments as it takes me long enough to do these reviews as it is). However, I still stand by the belief that many of them are too deliberate. These are fixable with enough tweaking, though. The only two jokes that I really dislike are the Bush one I mentioned above and the lines "Most people don't know this, but hypertension is most common in black people, old people, fat people, crab people, alcoholics, crack heads, short angry men, and women taking birth control pills. Unfortunately, I am all of these.". As original as a few of these are (I enjoyed the short angry men (but not like that (sicko))), the list is too long. A good rule of thumb is to go by the "rule of threes", which basically just means that when you're listing something only use three items. This is often done best by having the first two points be (relatively) normal and then have the third be completely ridiculous, as in "Blacks, latinos, and deep-space monsters of excruciating death that happen to have particularly poor taste in tea". That's not a particularly great example, but you see what I'm getting at. Maybe.
Your spelling and grammar, which probably sucks:	9	Your grammar is near-perfect, and few to none of your sentences run on for too long. However, as mentioned above some of the wording in the article is somewhat unnatural and deliberate, so no 10 for you. You bad, bad person.
Images, or lack of:	6	I didn't particularly enjoy the images. While I see the point of them, and they do achieve what they need to, they're simply not exciting. You can only laugh at the same old guy so many times. In my case no times, because he creeps me out. You need more variety with your images, and I highly recommend taking out two of the images that are there. Maybe all three. That guy is really really creepy.
Miscellaneous, not averaged, despite what some would have you believe:	10	I don't use this section as most (or all) other reviewers do. Instead of averaging the other scores and rendering this category completely useless, I use it to change the final score to what I want it to be. Even though some of your above scores may have been rather low, the article overall is still very good, and as such I'm giving you a seldom-used 10 point booster shot.
Final Score, totaled, as most would have you believe:	38	Don't lose faith from what I said in the humor section. This article is already well above the standards of most of this site. It's not up to feature quality yet, but I believe that it could be and that you are more than capable of making it so. I hope this makes it to VFH, it certainly deserves it. Whether or not it can be featured remains to be seen, but you can do it! Go you!
Me:	Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 20:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)