Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/The Godfather Part III
The Godfather Part III[edit source]
--Black Flamingo 14:10, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
- I'll accept your challenge, but it may take me a while to complete it. 48 hours at the most.--If you're 555 then I'm
19:31, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
| Humour: | 7 | I have to say, I really like where you’re going with this. It’ll be hard to put criticism on such a good article. Nevertheless, I must, and it’s going to hurt me more than it does to you.
The problem that I actually managed to fine is not necessarily things you must change, but things you could possibly add. For example, I never seen Godfather Part III (or any of them at all) and therefore would not entirely understand what you’re talking about; I had to look up a Wikipedia article about it. Perhaps you could add a section that say’s “for those who haven’t seen (and I hope you don’t)” and put a brief plot about the movie, as well as the film maker’s criticism about certain parts of the plot. Maybe another kind of idea would be for the film maker to talk about on how he would wanted it to be filmed, who he wanted to be part of the cast, and what plot that he would preferred to use. Also, perhaps you could have him say something like the following two statements, “For the few who actually liked it, I appreciate it that you at least found it plausible even in the least, probably even better than Jaws 4, which we all know was a crappy movie,” and/or, “if there is ever going to be a Godfather Part IV, I promise never to make the same mistakes. Just a couple of hints, but they are a good ideas nevertheless. |
| Concept: | 8 | I really like the concept; it’s something I hardly see in an Uncyclopedian article. Very clever. You chose a concept and stuck to it throughout the entire article, unlike some people here, but I won’t list any names. Same thing with the tone; you never swap it with another. However, the reason why the score is currently an eight is because I think you should focus on more things than just criticizing those who were responsible for its awful production. |
| Prose and formatting: | 7 | I can see that you either good at spelling or had the time to actually proofread it. I see no mistake in spelling or grammar. However, the reason that the score is a nine is over the fact that I think you should take all the “It’s all …. Fault” sections and put them in one big section saying “Those whou are to blame, and have them as subsections with 3 =’s. |
| Images: | 9 | All the images are ok in my opinion. They don’t really show any humor, yet the captions help with the humor, so they’re fine. Maybe one or two more could be nice, but I think you’re good on images. |
| Miscellaneous: | 7.8 | My average score of this article. |
| Final Score: | 38.8 | Ok, so this one did not take me as long as I anticipated, but better that than waiting for the time I said I would get this done. There wasn't much to criticise, yet I think what I have is enough for you to work with. Knowing you Black Flamingo, I know you can make this article much better and shinier. Good Luck! Cheers! |
| Reviewer: | --If you're 555 then I'm  20:40, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
| |