Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Scat

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Scat

Spikebrennan 20:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	7	Humor? How can a nonsense article be humorous? Well, I actually did laugh when I saw the table. Maybe if you added some more devices to make the scat look like important data, like a bar graph or a poll, you could capitalize even better on being serious about something silly as described in HTBFANJS. But the problem I had with this article is that since I lack any musical aptitude, I didn't recognize a lot of the songs and I didn't know how to parse what I was reading. You could add text decoration or change the font size so musical fools like me could better understand what kind of tune or emphasis is supposed to be there.
Concept:	8	This article's certainly a novelty, but I think you've pulled it off well. Congratulations. I like how it's pretty much in chronological order, too. But this article seems to have sort of a niche appeal, like Geologist. Not everyone's going to appreciate it. But what can you do, eh? (aside from replacing all the images with pictures of tits.) But yeah, I think the direction you've taken this article is about as good as an article called "scat" could hope for.
Prose and formatting:	8	I've got to give you credit for formatting this article well. If my vision were blurry and I couldn't read what was on the screen, I'd think it was just another Wikipedia article. It could stand to be longer, though, as the sections are only a couple of lines long. I know that's a really tough thing to ask on an article like this, but at least consider ways you could add text to it. I can't expect it to be as verbose as Lorem Ipsum, but it's pretty skinny as it is. Also, play around with the placement of images. Make it so they're not all right-justified in a column, and try to make it so that last image isn't sticking out at the bottom (preferably by adding more text), because it's a little jarring to the harmony of the page.
Images:	7	I don't want to give you too high of a score for the images when you didn't actually make them (or even upload them), but I have to admit that they work. A couple of them take a second to figure out, which is good because it makes you seem all pretentious and elite (which is a good thing, right?). It seems that you shrunk the image of Armstrong so we can't see the red eyes. Here's another image to consider using so you don't have to do that. If I had to suggest one thing to change about the images, I'd say to have more images about the applications of scat rather than the people who said it (like the image of Krishna you used).
Miscellaneous:	9	The average is 7.5 but I'm bumping up your miscellaneous score to 9 because I appreciate the effort and research you put in to this. That's how Uncyclopedia articles should be written.
Final Score:	39	This is a fine article, but what it needs most (and what is probably the hardest thing to give it) is more. It has a good soul, so work on its body. Consider letting it join the ranks of other nonsense articles (at least two of which have been featured) by adding {{nonsense|stuff=Diddly-bop}} or something. But hey, you seem to have the right idea about it.
Reviewer:	Met him on a Sunday and his name was --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 07:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)