Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Pyromaniac

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Pyromaniac

Hopefully this doesn't suck. Maybe it does. That's what you're here for, though. Yeah, I'm a pee whore, now. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:33, Mar 26

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

Hey, I think you adopted me once. .../me holds breath... LED, IT'S ME, IT'S ME CAJEK, HI! HI, LED!   Le Cejak • <-> Mar 26 (00:57)

LED? Now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time...a long time... - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:06, Mar 26

Humour:	7.3	Yes, it's me: The Awesome Cajek. We're studying pyromania in my criminology right now, and I want to see what my favorite Uncyc user (except for <insert name here>) has to say about the whole thing. Intro [8]: Definitely crazy, which is what you're going for. However, I could only give you an 8 because, although the intro sets the tone of the article, it is slightly awkward. I don't want to get too psych on you, but this article is starting to flip between someone who is defending fire as a right and a cleansing power ("Parental" attitude towards fire) and someone who simply wants to play with fire ("Childish" attitude, which is not as interesting). I think that instead of saying "oh yes, oh yes" (Para 4), you need to stay with the weirdo in Para 1 who is talking about cleansing the city. It would not be as coherent if it flipped between those two personas, you know what I mean? Oh man, I hope I made sense there. If you DO follow what I mean, get rid of the childish elements and the parts that don't really have to do with fire (the second to the last sentence is weird and dumb). If you DO NOT know what I'm talking about, forget it. 1 History [8]: Yes, parental viewpoint. It's more consistent and feels better than the first section, actually. I hate those one line paragraphs, they're kinda irritating. But yeah, above average job on this one! 2 Causes [8]: Sex! Sex with FIRE! to get a 10, add another paragraph of the same length. I wanna hear more about WHY this guy set his parents on fire. 3 Treatment [7]: I like the parental viewpoint, but this section is pretty short. This guy should be going on and on about how beautiful fire is, but instead he dispenses with it in a few sentences. I WANNA HAVE SEX WITH FIRE. 4 Associations with paranoia and bed wetting [6]: hmm. yeah. 5 Conclusion [7]: Expansion, please! I like it so far, and I like the switch from parental to childish at the end (if you still follow those two words). This would be a good time to go more on the childish viewpoint.
Concept:	9	A necessary article. A Led article. A good article.
Prose and formatting:	7	The intro needs to be cleaned up. Get rid of those one sentence paragraphs, or integrate them somewhere else. Everything else seems ok though, as far as I can tell...
Images:	7	Images are fine
Miscellaneous:	7.6
Final Score:	37.9	I don't think it's VFH worthy yet. Make it twice as long and THEN we'll talk! However, you're definitely on the right track. If you understand the parental-child thing I was talking about, I think it'll be easier to guide this article towards honors. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this, Led! Hugs! ...manly hugs.
Reviewer:	Le Cejak • <-> Mar 26 (04:45)