Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Quick (Quick)

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Quick

Yay :D i call not it. --LongLiverh3 03:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Zheliel/sigz2 09:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	5.3	OK, I have to be honest, I didn't laugh much reading this article. I can kind of see where its trying to go, and maybe there are some culinary 'in' jokes that I don't quite get, but its lacking the humour it needs. Perhaps having a bit more grounding in reality would help... that's not to say that the randomosity (that's probably not a word) of your article isn't good, the outlandishness will be addressed in a minute, but its randomosity without any kind of real-world comparison. Perhaps a bit more developing humour would help, like your description of the ingredients of Quick, work on that, it has potential. That goes for a lot of the humour, lot of potential, not quite there yet.
Concept:	7.2	Your concept is very good, very out there, very random, just right for Uncyclopedia I reckon. It just needs a bit more evolution. Add more details about Quick, invent side-effects, marketing campaigns, celebrity opiions, the politics of quick, genetically modified Quick, or something along these lines. Like the humour it has a lot of potential.
Prose and formatting:	7	Language is fine, in the right sort of vein, nice, formal correct. Where it could be more interesting is in the formatting. You tend to create very short sections, make them a bit longer, or merge them in to one. One or two problems with the 'Quick in the World' bit, the India section should be a sub-section I think. Don't be afraid to try different bits of formatting, throw in a few quotes or status boxes or something. Perhaps try adding a banner. As it is now, it's adequate, make it a bit more vibrant
Images:	5	Sorry, the images are a bit standard. They don't add much to the article. Although the 'Not Quick' line is interesting, it might be better served as some sort of collage with more pictures. Perhaps try including a graph of some sort too.
Miscellaneous:	7	Liked the 'What is this?' bit at the end. That's about it for miscellaneous.
Final Score:	31.5	Everything in the article has potential, it's nicely put together and thought up, but it feels like an embryonic version of a much bigger idea. With some work and more creativity this could be a great article, as it stands now, it's a bit average. Good luck with this article, I'm very curious as to how it will develop.
Reviewer:	Fezzul 28/5/09