Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Queen Jane Approximately
This is related, strangely enough, to another article on Pee Review at this time: Diamonds & Rust. If anyone has a passing knowledge of the subject matter, both could do with a reviewin'. Cheers, IronLung 07:17, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
Queen Jane Approximately[edit source]
IronLung 07:17, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
This articles mine to review. 12 hours--
Director
WILL
YOU 333 23:07, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
| Humour: | 2 | If a harsher reviewer saw this, they would say, "most of the humor here sucked big blue whale balls that are covered with bitter tasting sprinkles of epic fail drenched in pools of liquid elephant shit mixed with the face of Lady Gaga. Of course, I'm not like that, and plus it isn't even close to being that horrible, and it's been awhile since I saw such an article. But seriously, I really didn’t find a lot of things funny here. I’ll explain the things that made me go, “not funny, I’m bored, ZZZZZZZZZZZ.”
‘’’Profanity’’’: Even though profanity can get some laughs, using it too much dries up the article. Also, profanity should be used mostly in quotes, first person tone articles, and using it in third person articles very sparingly. ‘’’Complete Randomness’’’ I discussed this already in the concept section earlier, so there’s no need to go over this again. ‘’’Tend to repeat’’’ In ever paragraph, you choose a scene and put the reaction and such. Although each section contains different subjects, they’re technically the same thing and I got bored after awhile. You should always try different ways to come up with humor than just using the technique you used the last paragraph over and over again. |
| Concept: | 4 | I might sound harsh in this review, but I’m Cleary not trying to be.
When I read the title of the article and the first sentence I thought this was going to be a rather descent article. But when I read the part where it said, “She was also a fucking bitch”, I just knew this article would be a downer. And unfortunately I was right. I will start with the concept of the article (as this is the section where the concept should be reviewed) and work my way down. First, after reading the entire article, I thought the concept of the article was a total “meh”. Apparently, you took the name of something and instead of making an article that is based off of that subject, you took the name of something and made an article completely unrelated to that subject with the exception of the name. Is there a problem with that? Kinda-sorta. It’s ok to do some parts of an article that are completely made up by your imagination. But an article based off a subject should also have some non-made up parts as well. Even if it is 20% percent is true, as it is better than something completely random. Plus, it said in the HTBFANJS that, and I quote, The truth is usually funnier than nonsense. The funniest pages are those closest to the truth”’’ An example of this is, also included on theHTBFANJS, is as followed:
Another thing from HTBFANJS that should be read is as followed: Patent nonsense can be hilarious, it may get a laugh the first time, but it quickly gets dull. If someone types in "Frodo Baggins", the article should have more to do with Frodo Baggins than if they typed in "Dinosaur". They want to read a humorous slant on Frodo Baggins, not an article on a Dutch mink farmer with laser-beam eyes. Just remember these things as you are making changes to the article. |
| Prose and formatting: | 5 | Not many spelling and grammar errors at least, which can be corrected with spell-check on Microsoft Word or our Proofreading service, with the latter being the better opinion. But don’t think you’re off the hook yet, because there are some other things that I like to discuss in this section. First it’s the tone. It’s a cross between first person and third person. In the past I’ve been told by a fellow reviewer that using both rarely works, and in this case it doesn’t. I prefer you choose one or the other to avoid confusion and to make the article look more professional.
Second, I prefer you don’t questions as headings. Although someone else with a different opinion might disagree, I think that looks really noobish and should be avoided. |
| Images: | 5 | I think the images can work well with the article, even if it was rewritten. I gave you a five, though, because the captions don’t work. You need to come up with some better captions so the images can be funnier and help them support your article. |
| Miscellaneous: | 5 | My overall grade of this article |
| Final Score: | 21 | I’ve reviewed way worst than this, so know that this article didn’t go too bad. But it does need work. I suggest scrapping the entire thing and restarting from scratch, but of course you can keep the images. Don’t be too discouraged, I know you can do it. If you have any questions/comments, just go to my talk page and I’ll be happy to answer them. Good Luck! Cheers! |
| Reviewer: | --DirectorWILLYOU 333 05:21, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
| |