Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:James1011R/BadPeeReviews

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

User:James1011R/BadPeeReviews

James1011R (talk) 07:34, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Joe's Quick Review at your service. I apologize for the length of the review; it is because I got nothing else to say at the time. |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Pinoy CUN|IC Kill | 08:20, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Humour:	8.8	You had done a pretty good job. I mean, for someone who disappeared not long after registering, you are one impressive comedian. I mean, I had a hilarious laugh at all seven examples of what you must not do when you review an article, and after all, you did read the Beginner's Guide. Sections 4 to 6 (that is, from Weird Scores to Invalid Review), really hits the funnybones of not just mine, but for the potential reader. This is the creme de la creme of all jokes, but should you save such things like that for the first, so that your potential readers could laugh and continue to laugh as they went through the other parts? I mean, these headings as well as the contents should deserve the first portions of the article.
Concept:	7.5	The whole premise of a scoring system gone wrong was executed in magnificent steps, and you certainly presented the Beginner's Guide to Pee Review in just seven examples. The concept is great. I am impressed that you got a very good skill at doing an article this impressive. But to be honest, this deserved to have a title of "HowTo:Make a Bad Pee Review" into the mainspace for HowTo, because this is basically describing how not to make a Pee Review. In which I found it really helpful.
Prose and formatting:	6.5	I commend this really well, the prose. But the article is just too fucking short. It is literally short; don't get me wrong, I love this article, but I felt that it is too short. What you need to do, is to explain why this is not a good way of scoring it, rather than just putting it in short sentences. One to ten sentences should be enough; after all, brevity is wit. Just don't make it too short a sentence, because eventually you want to execute punchlines for the article you're creating. What you want is long periods of laughs, not short, brief, fly-by-night laughs. On the other hand, the formatting is well-executed, you used the Pee Review template as a base for providing examples of bad Peer Reviews, and that is all I can say, because there are other things on my mind I would like to talk to you about.
Images:	0	What I found disappointing in this article is that there is no pictures anywhere on the article. There is nothing but words on this article. I mean, any article that does not have any images is something that is considered as unfinished. But you are not a failure. Just because you have not put up the images yet does not mean that you are a failure. First off, you can always go up to RadicalX's Corner to request images, or even better, send a message to any user that is really multi-talented to request an image that hasn't been made yet, but is a really good idea for your article. Secondly, may I suggest to search around Uncyclopedia for some images that could be really useful (but don't stick images in just for the sake of it) for your article, that is funny, coherent and relevant to the HowTo article you are doing.
Miscellaneous:	7.7	Average Score, based on 7.5+8.8+6.5+0, then divide by 3, because the zero does not count. Anyway, it's because I can't think of anything else. (The result is 7.66666666666666.... when averaged, but I rounded it up to 2 significant figures.)
Final Score:	30.5	Well, at least I got a good laugh out of this. I mean, this article is really worth it. The main sections are funny, but maybe try extending the article way further. This isn't VFD material whatsoever, nor VFH material either. Maybe try extending it, and talk to the more experienced article writers for some advice. I'm just here for reviewing.
Reviewer:	|Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Pinoy CUN|IC Kill | 08:20, March 5, 2012 (UTC)