Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Poo futures

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Poo futures

The future is here, guys. Image ideas would be especially awesome! IronLung 04:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	7	Overall, its fairly humorous, but it does have some potential for improvement. (Having potential for improvement is a good thing, it means your working with a concept and base article that can be improved, I don't use the phrase as a polite way of saying your article is half finished or is just plain bad, I mean its the opposite of working with an unsavable concept, but I digress.) Since its a relatively short article, the best way to start would be to flesh it out more, that would help decrease the ugliness a bit. Also, you 5 principles seem a bit random, and it felt like the article was going to go to crap there. Fortunately, it didn't, but many times, some utterly horrific articles have decent intro, then go to hell in a handbag in the first couple paragraphs. You'll probably want to keep the start of the body section more restrained to keep from turning off veteran Uncyclopedia readers. Also, articles should generally start out restrained, or even deadpan, then go more and more bombastic as the article progresses.
Concept:	7	Concept is good for the subject matter. Making fun of investment scams.
Prose and formatting:	6.5	No typos or red links. However, the article does look a little "ugly" for some reason, in part because you have too many short paragraphs and not enough space & text between headers. If you could make the article look more like an investment brochure, it would help it. Unfortunately, I don't know that much about advanced editing, so I can't help you with that.
Images:	0	No images. Granted, your article might be an "ok" without images, but as a rule, every article should have at least one image. Even if you don't think it needs one, most readers, especially veteran readers, will think the article incomplete if it doesn't have one. An image will also make the text take up more lines, but sucking up space, which will reduce the ugliness of the article.
Miscellaneous:	6.8	Average of scores excluding image score. I didn't include that section because the zero would lower this one down too far.
Final Score:	27.3	Overall, its a decent article with alot of potential for improvement. Your low score is mainly due to a lack of images, even one or two "sorta ok" images would raise your score by atleast 5-6 points.
Reviewer:	--Mnbvcxz 03:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)