Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Pee Review Sojourn

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

That time I was nearly eye-raped by An Article Written by Somebody that Didn't Read How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid: A Retrospective during my sojourn into Uncyclopedia

I've created something in an attempt to get an article that appropriately explains the context of the Pee Review of An Article Written by Somebody that Didn't Read How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid. I know it ain't perfect so please let me know if you have any suggestions. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I'm not asking for a a huge amount of text just saying you don't like this article. I don't really care how you rate this article, but if you're not going to give me any advice, just beat it. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved to talk page. Saberwolf116 13:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, Saberwolf. Only admins are allowed to do that. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, socky, only admins are allowed to archive forums. I keep quiet if you do? Saberwolf116 14:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving forums is another issue entirely. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get into an argument. For all intents and purposes, A wizard did it. Saberwolf116 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with Lord Drama and his ban hammer. ~ 14:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you gonna ban me for a day again? *sigh* Just let me get in my review first. Saberwolf116 14:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	5	Writing a Sojourn that a non-Uncyclopedian will laugh at is extremely difficult. From what I can interperet, you're trying to make this slightly less stereotypical than the average sojourn, but I still think there are several areas you could work on. First, you don't have to post the entire review. You could make a more concise version of it, or even get Hyperbole himself to give you a few lines on it. Just slapping the entire review there makes the article look ugly, so that could be something you could work on. Another you might want to stray from the typical sojourn on is to lay off the sex references: they're pretty random, and I think the article would be better off without em'. Now for the concept.
Concept:	4.5	Well, i'm sort of oblidged to give your concept a negative score, seeing as how you use about 50 in-jokes that even veteran Uncyclopedians might not get. Your problems, as you might guess, have to do with your execution. I think the main problem is that you don't the right kind of humor/ words in your main section. Like I said above, messing around with your Pee Review could improve your article greatly. You also might want to change the title of your section from "this fucking Pee Review" to "this fucking retrospective" so that non-Uncyclopedians will get it.
Prose and formatting:	5	Well, there are two problems here. The first, as i've mentioned above, is that you've got a huge wall of text in the middle of your article, which you could easily reduce. Another problem is that, towards the end, you have a lot of blanks and empty spaces, so I think you might want to deviate from the typical Sojourn and expand that last section. Adding a few footnotes might not hurt either.
Images:	5	I can't really fault you on this one, but it is a text-based image, so it isn't really that funny. One idea you might want to consider is making the pee review a 100 or 200 px image, and sticking it at the top of the article.
Miscellaneous:	5	My overall grade of the article.
Final Score:	24.5	If you want to make this better than a typical sojourn, you need to keep working at it. Like I said, the best things you can do are cut down the sex references, reduce the size of your middle section, and make your article more appealable to non-Uncyclopedians. Bottom Line: Reduce the in-jokes and the middle section; work on it some more. Good luck! =)
Reviewer:	Saberwolf116 16:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)