Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Proofreading

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Proofreading

This is sort of mine, but mostly not. It's not anything that I would ever write, but I have a profound adoration of it, so I stole it. I'd now like a review to help me work out if it can go anywhere. Once you read it, you'll see what I mean. Maybe. Pup 01:23 21 Feb '12

I could have stolen it from you but instead, I have to do this Peer Review, because I think to me, my humor is as shit as possible, and I think reviewing the HTBFANJS would be a better idea (I did it a few times, and I still can't find any funny inspiration. Plus, I believe that brevity is not wit, hence the tonnes of shit dumped daily for quantity over quality). Expect bias. |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Kyurem CUN|IC Kill | 10:48, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

Humour:	5.5	This article is, being about proofreading, a bit funny, but in my opinion, not funny enough. To others, the simple spelling mistake or two had created more eruptions of violence and criticism than the French Republicans' idea of lopping heads of criminals in a painless way possible, even if it means death in less than 5 milliseconds and a hell of a lot more painful. And then again, to others, it is relatively funny and as such should be kept that way. So for the sake of others who find it funny, I give an indicative score of how funny it is, with 1 being dead serious and 10 being really funny and serious. You can kill me now because I gave you 5.5 instead of a lovely 8.8.
Concept:	7	The concept of proofreading is of something we seem to overlook at, apart from the most requested articles including Tom Cruise that we still wanted, but the idiots had deleted them. But maybe, there should be some further building in your concept. Your concept of how a noob, starting at Uncyclopedia, writes articles without reading HTBFANJS, is something that I would give command to. Just expand it, add a See Also page (and with more misspellings), and maybe I would give it a higher score.
Prose and formatting:	7	Now here is something I like: Pages that look like the things they are about. I don't like the spelling you made, and lots of spelling errors (I admit that I made some errors in spelling myself), but seeing as it is proofreading, then I would give some slack about the spelling and the formatting. Hey, it is about why we need to proofread before creating articles, right?
Images:	0	Where the hell are the images? When I write articles- and by the way, mostly shit ones, I never forget to put an image or two to prove that it is crap, or it is funny. You need to find images related to misspelling. There's tonnes around on Uncyc!
Miscellaneous:	10	10 for originality and making the pages that look like it was about. Shame that you forgot to put it in the said category.
Final Score:	29.5	You are truly indeed a master Peer Reviewer, as much as an Article Building Master, seeing as hundreds of awards had all been racked up by you. But maybe this could be one of your first failures. But chin up, because look at me now; I still had yet to get a featured article.
Reviewer:	|Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Kyurem CUN|IC Kill | 10:48, February 23, 2012 (UTC)