Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Prog Archives (quick)
Prog Archives [edit source]
AssFarmer 21:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 |
Projectmayhem666-has stamped this article for review. |
 |
I shall be reviewing this article and leaving you reviewed until you can't take anymore reviews, and you're forced to edit the article. Here here. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 00:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
| Humour: | 7 | The quotes are not that funny and could be made a little better the 1st and last are ok. The 2nd I'm just too oblivious to, looks like an inside joke and they're never good to use. The 3rd quote should be slipped and not slip.
First paragraph is pretty good however the list could be shortened, lists do lose their touch when they go on for too long. However the next paragraph is actually quite funny I have no complaints as it works. The search is a nice touch however its just Uncyclopedia's search, maybe a drop down box but that would take a while... I know, don't change it, its fine. Styles section could be funnier, perhaps a witty one-liner at the end of each one. Synthphonic Prog (Symphonic Prog???) Not sure if you have the name right here but I'm not going to argue. The humour is a bit of a let down here, its funny in places but on the whole it isnt, the lists are long as are the albums, if this is going to be the same for each sub-genre its going to really drag the article down after such a good start. Key albums list is really funny though. After this I read the whole article and it uses alot of lists, however my previous statement is correct a few times where the lists are too long. The shorter lists work very well but the longer ones don't. I really like this article and I'm tempted to nominate this after a couple of improvements. |
| Concept: | 8 | Concept is top notch, its also been implemented very well. The idea is very different and uses alot of thing I've not seen before, really like this article, good work. |
| Prose and formatting: | 6 | Quite a few spelling and grammar errors, some of the language doesn't flow very well either. Its nothing major, nothing a good read through to yourself wouldn't fix. All in all well written and a good article |
| Images: | 5 | The images are ok (Its firing not fireing). But they're not very funny, in comparison to the article they are a little bit of a let down, there's also more than 1 image at the bottom and big gaps in the article where there are no images. There should be more images and better ones with funnier captions. |
| Miscellaneous: | 7 | I'm giving this a 7 because I really like the article but it still needs improvement, it is nearly on its way to VFH and will get my nomination or vote which ever because I like the article. |
| Final Score: | 33 | Good article with room for improvement. Hope to read the finished version soon. |
| Reviewer: | --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 12:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) | |