Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/That time I was nearly eye-raped by An Article Written by Somebody that Didn't Read How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid: A Retrospective during my sojourn into Uncyclopedia

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

That time I was nearly eye-raped by An Article Written by Somebody that Didn't Read How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid: A Retrospective during my sojourn into Uncyclopedia

• I've created something in an attempt to get an article that appropriately explains the context of the Pee Review of An Article Written by Somebody that Didn't Read How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid. I know it ain't perfect so please let me know if you have any suggestions. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	0	Call me an old relic, but given the amount of in-jokes and memes I have seen, you really can't expect me to be too keen in finding out how all this got started in the first place. In fact, given what I have been offered in this article, I don't think it's worthwhile mincing too much words with whoever wrote it. The approach I use to rate this article is quite simple - for humour, I give 1 point for each chuckle I make reading it, and taken into consideration that this article has borrowed quite a large amount of content from somewhere else, any chuckle I make reading said content is summarily ignored. For the score this article gets for this part of the review, please refer to the left-hand side of this template.
Concept:	1	As we are all aware, this part of the standardised pee review is about the quality of the content. I understand the fact that this wiki is quite notorious for not having a proper place for editors to express their frustrations in relation to their work here, but this is still not good enough an excuse for anyone to create spam articles just to prove their points. What's more, this article has added no extra value to its original counterpart. In other words, every byte of storage space that it is now occupying has practically gone to waste, and every joule of energy that the respective hard disk drives have used to skim through its binary content has been meaninglessly converted to carbon emissions. It doesn't have to be this way, but someone somehow convinced himself that there was a compelling reason to toss in a series of random words in order to create this murky comedy of fog and mist. (Don't get me wrong here because I am not terribly impressed with the original stuff, either.) Nevertheless, there is at least what resembles content in this article, and that's why I give it 1 for this part of the review.
Prose and formatting:	0	I understand people these day just throw SMS-speak around like its all fun and game, but at the same time I believe we are already ten years too late to poke fun at that. It is just something that most people have got so sick of that they aren't really bothered enough to care anymore. Let's face it - any monkey with a keyboard can just come around and barf up a few incoherent lines of gibberish without having to read any guidelines beforehand. Besides, HTBFANJS is a steaming turd waiting to be scooped up and flushed down the toilet. No one needs guidance on what constitutes good taste what does not, particularly not from a bunch of acne-ridden teenagers on the Internet. If someone puts something here that stinks up the place, there are always QVFD and VFD to take care of the matter. Writing crap like this, on the other hand, won't achieve anything. It will only add to the problem and further confuse whoever has the misfortune to come across it - it is just counter-productive and pointless.
Images:	1	I can see somehow one or two image files have got involved in this debacle of words, but should I really take them as a mere aberration inside the whole picture, or should I consider them a vague satire of some form? Again, I don't feel particularly compelled to dig to the bottom of this, and thus for this part of the review I give the article one for at least containing image files.
Miscellaneous:	0.5	Averaged from other review parts
Final Score:	2.5	A spur-of-the-moment mind dump that generates nothing positive in this community, and a satire that brings nothing into question except its own very existence.
Reviewer:	The Colonel (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. This review was in no way at all helpful. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There is actually one thing you can do to improve whatever you are trying to pull off here, and it's called "stop doing it". --The Colonel (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)