Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Unquotable:Quotes in AAAAA! (Revised)
Unquotable:Quotes in AAAAA! [edit source]
Magic Snow man ☃ 19:35, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
| Humour: | 3 | Right, what we have here is just another “AAAAAA” article. Great. However you started off in a slightly more promising direction by using actual words and pretending you could interpret the all knowing wisdom of the AAAAAA article. It got a chuckle but, as I think you realised, it can’t be sustained over a whole article. So instead of thinking up new directions for the idea you simple copy pasted some A’s onto the page under pointless headers.
I don’t mean to be mean but this isn’t funny repetition it’s pointless repetition. |
| Concept: | 2 | I really can’t give much at all for this because while you attempted to do something different with it (interpreting the article as if it were something intelligent) it is still just a copy of another article (that only makes people laugh because it has no concept (other than the concept that it’s concept can be interpreted how one chooses (and even then that’s a bit of an intellectual leap))).
Doing anything original with the AAAAA article is very difficult if not impossible but, more importantly, it’s unnecessary. We have AAAAA we don’t need it again. |
| Prose and formatting: | 7 | Prose and formatting were fine as far as I could tell. Although you probably put that poofreading template there because you thought it was necessary. I’ve been away for a while so I’m not sure how active the poofreaders are (they were dead when I left). I’m shit at spelling so I tend to just run my articles through a spell check which catches most things and anything else, the people who care tend to tidy it as they read.
Although I did like the template at the side that tidies away the contents and gives extra links to other UnQuotables, I’m not sure if your responsible for it or not but it was used well. |
| Images: | 1 | Just the one and it was a screen dump of an article we’ve all read – even most brand new users have. It’s not really enough for the amount of text you have but as with other sections of the article there’s nothing new you can do with it really so the point is moot. |
| Miscellaneous: | 3.25 | (Averaged by wizard)
Sorry if I’m coming across as a bit of dick. I had a look around and apparently this is an article you found on the request list, valiant as it is to take on an article from there, I tend to get the impression that the list is compiled by people who think Uncyclopedia is Illogicopedia, and so any concept you gain from the title is usually doomed from the start. If I were you I’d ask an admin to delete it and then forget about it. There are new things to write about, we don’t need ten articles revolving around the same tiered old meme. |
| Final Score: | 16.25 | If you’d like to thank/insult/ask me about any of this please visit my talk page. |
| Reviewer: | Orian57 Talk  17:39 13 December 2010
| |