Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Stoned

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Stoned

Rewritten from a clusterfuck of crap. A couple of things i'm looking for in a review are how to make this guy sound more stoned, the format of my images, and how much better or worse it is from the previous version. Saberwolf116 19:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	8	I didn't laugh. I smiled a couple of times, but I did not laugh. Some Uncyclopedia articles actually make me laugh. This one didn't. That is an important part of writing the article. I don't get the link to Mr.N9000's user page under the drivin gtheir own car. How should I? Those in-jokes don't make good jokes in general. Redundancy is Ok. Wasn't all that funny in this case, though.
Concept:	8	I think Wikipedia may have an article on Stoned. If that's the case, than the concept is always okay.
Prose and formatting:	6	Too many ellipses(The ...s) and commas space out and slow down the pace, making it difficult to read, because I have to pick out the words from the punctuation. I understand that the author is stoned, but I dislike this manner of writing. There is also not much formatting to be seen, except for the occasional link, and the pictures inadvertantly get in the way of the article.
Images:	8	Adequate. An abundance of them brings the score up a point. The Bin Laden picture is funny, so that helps.
Miscellaneous:	7	It was too short! It's close to stub-worthy.
Final Score:	37	In short, it has it's moments, but not many. I've seen much worse though.
Reviewer:	MaxPayne 19:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)