Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnNews:Wikia's new "Style" causes uproar

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

UnNews:Wikia's new "Style" causes uproar

Being a mainly useless whore this is one of my rare forays into actual writing. Considering it took all of 10 minutes at 3am yesterday it'd be interesting to see what people think. Thx. — Sir Manticore 12:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• G'Day mate, Sycamore is reviewing your article, to pass the time, have fun with Noel with this free coupon.--— Sir Sycamore (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A Free Coupon For a bumming session with Noel Fielding

Humour:	6.5	Pretty alright, it’s relevant to the site and parody’s the topic well. I think the punctuation is a little dodgy, similarly there’s little use of the usual bells and whistles for the top notch articles Even the Unknowns ones). The jokes a little focused around the image and I would consider educing this. Throughout you could consider expanding the content and discourse form users ads well as administrators. Instead of just using quotations you could use the Cquotes which make the whole thing look a little tidier For example: “ Ads will now be placed inside content areas ” — Danny, an edit whore You could also have the advertisers themselves come in and give there reasons for humour effect-again filling it out would be my advice as it is too image based currently.
Concept:	8.5	good concept-pretty good gag with the image-its a little too short to go much more in depth than that- I think if you added more the concept could be a broader to add further interest to your article
Prose and formatting:	6	Some errors that stand out because it is so short-red link, "We understand" is unreferenced, which is a little weak. no references. The end is a little too anchorman - maybe try and close the piece off a little better-there’s also not much formation to the story Beginning-middle and end; I think you could add these without losing any humour factor to your article
Images:	7	Good image, good gag, no complaints from me-it is a tad dominating and I would decrease it a little
Miscellaneous:	5.5	No major complaints from me-there just isn't the content to really pick over. It is a bit of a one joke article, which is not so great, maybe you could bring in more to the piece
Final Score:	33.5	Good luck-I would not be surprised to see this do well in VFH due to the relevant content. If you need anything just leave a not on my talk page;)
Reviewer:	--— Sir Sycamore (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)