Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnNews:Uncyclopedia Cures Cancer (3rd time lucky)

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

UnNews:Uncyclopedia Cures Cancer

Rewritten again, I think the content looks a little low, but I had to cut alot out based on the reviews and rewrite everything.—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 10:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, this tree is taken! Pee Review In Progress This review is the property of: -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log)

WOOHOO!!! --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 12:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You're way too easy to please to be fun... O.o -- Luverly - (Contribs) (Talk) Grammar Nazi, Mum , BFF & NotM, CUN , GMP . - Perkele! 13:39, 20 Mar

I've been waiting ages, I'm not really, I was hoping for 50 :p, I'll rewrite it (again) this weekend, I've been at work and really tired on a lunch break previously so after sleep you'll be very amazed. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 13:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	6.5	Hmm... I'm not entirely rolling off my chair here. Funny, but not hilarious. I know I should try to elaborate, but it's hard to pinpoint it o.O
Concept:	8	The concept itself is amusing, especially if the original reason for the article came from the quote “tumours can be huffed” or similar in a “serious” newspaper... :D However it feels like though the original idea has potential for brilliance, the text itself conveys a slight tendency to taking shortcuts vs. actually bothering to think every bit about the whole story through. It's a good start, and admins bumbling around drunk on Hawaii sounds like an almost plausible scenario, especially with rumours of last night's events still fresh in my mind... :P
Prose and formatting:	6	Not quite as high brow enthusiastic as most science news articles these days. One bigger concern however is the whole prose bit. Spelling and grammar are okay, but on a relatively juvenile level of maturity, which means it looks too fast like what it is, a spoof. No surprises of any sort.
Images:	7	Relatively average, this one. Not too brilliant, not too bad. The images are supporting the article, but don't add any visual gags per se, and the captions aren't splendidly funny.
Miscellaneous:	6.9	I really can't think of anything exceptionally good to say, nor exceptionally bad about this article on a short notice. Longer notice, it's a little nondescript, without any surprise or climax of a gag, so it falls a little flat in it's predictability. Hard to explain this one, though.
Final Score:	34.4	All in all, relatively average article, higher points for decent execution and some thought that has gone into rewriting it, but still not a shining new gem. :)
Reviewer:	-- Luverly - (Contribs) (Talk) Grammar Nazi, Mum , BFF & NotM, CUN , GMP . - Perkele! 13:39, 20 Mar