Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Jedravent/Naruto
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
User:Jedravent/Naruto[edit source]
Yes, I rewrote the monster that is Naruto. Now, how much better is it than the current article? --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 19:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I decided to rewrite this review, since I disagree so much with the one that was given. See down below. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon
(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:34, Sep 3, 2007
| Humour: | 4 | I'm sorry to say, but I just don't see much humour |
| Concept: | 6 | Okay concept, could be better, in my opinion, I really REALLY think you shouldn't put it in first person |
| Prose and formatting: | 5 | Don't put it in first person |
| Images: | 4 | Since its still a work in progress I guess you can ignore this score |
| Miscellaneous: | 5 | Dunno |
| Final Score: | 24 | It's picking up, but I don't like the article written as an unsure opinion |
| Reviewer: | --DeathKila98 01:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | |
| Humour: | 7 | Amusing throughout, good use the perspective of everyone that isn't a Naruto fan. |
| Concept: | 9 | Yes indeed. |
| Prose and formatting: | 8 | No major issues. |
| Images: | 6 | You need more images, 1 or 2, I'd say. Should be easy enough, just get an actual pic from the show and add a humorous caption. Also, try to make your captions funnier, they're a great spot for one-liners. The first one is ok, but the others could be improved. |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | A bit short. Try to add more of what you have. |
| Final Score: | 36 | In all, not a bad page. The one up there now is long, and you prolly won't get it(or even read it, it's so damn long) unless you've seen the show, which is bad. This one comes across as more accessible, which is good. Keep at it, and it'll be a great replacement for the old page and a good page for Uncyclopedia:Conservation Week. |
| Reviewer: | P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon  (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:34, Sep 3, 2007
| |