Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Pat Garrett

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Pat Garrett

In depth only please. IronLung 02:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ironlung! I don't know who Pat Garrett is, so if you didn't get the score you wanted, it's probably my fault   Le Cejak • <6:22 May 26, 2009>

Pat Garrett is being reviewed by CajekHi! Your Source for Fine Scented Pee And Whatever Else Comes Out Of Him

Humour:	8.6	avg of all sections (except for "see also"): Introduction (8/10): You introduced us to him, good. You introduced us to the style you're going to write the article in, very good. It wasn't too funny, but it was only three sentences long. I give it an above average 8 because now the reader knows what to expect. Very efficient of you! 1 Liberal revisionist account of Pat Garrett's life (9/10): almost a 9 without the picture. That was good, because it follows the formula you laid out for us in the intro, plus it had a few jokes in there about how wimpy and tree-hugging liberals (like me) are. This is easy: more jokes equal more points. 1.1 Billy the Kid (8/10): again, almost a 9. I guess this could get old, but I'm not tired of it yet. I love this kind of article: easy to read, can't get lost, we know what category of jokes we're going to get... but that's also the downside: see my Cscore. 1.2 Later life (9/10): yep, funny. 2 Conservative revisionist account of Pat Garrett's life (9/10): I like the switch, but it gets tiresome by the last paragraph, with all the opiates. With the picture, it's an easy 9. 2.1 Billy the Kid (10/10): perfection. Two quotes in there that rocked, the marxist Billy the Kid thing and the "proportionate response". 2.2 Later life (7/10): It wraps up really fast, but it's okay.
Concept:	9	The reason it's not a 9 is because this could have become a very tired formula, but it works really well for this article. You definitely had to go overboard on the political stereotypes to make this work, but I like it.
Prose and formatting:	10	no complaints at all.
Images:	9	Loved the two pictures: hilarious captions.
Miscellaneous:	9.2	avg'd via {{pee}}
Final Score:	45.8	Ah, a 45.8, huh? That's fucking high. I don't know if this'll make VFH, though for two four reasons: (1) it's a little too short, (2) it's a little too predictable, and (3) political stereotype articles have been done before, though not often. Another reason (4) might be signified by Pee Review: why did it take so long to get this article reviewed? That's usually the death knell of an article, because it means people took a quick look at it and went "oh lord, no"... at least, that's what I do. This, though, is a GOOD one. If you feel self-confident enough, you should definitely nominate this: I stand by my score, but I would get a second opinion, because I love this type of article (formulaic and political).
Reviewer:	Le Cejak • <6:22 May 26, 2009>