Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Videodrome

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Videodrome

A few days ago there was a notice about how this article was too short, so I expanded it and added a second image. Are there any more sections I should add? I think Videodrome is a concept with a lot of potential for humor, give how absurd it is. Leave your thoughts and feels below. Is it long enough yet? Nicolassequeira (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Humour:	5	Pretty alright.
Concept:	6	For taking a weird, semi-underground sci-fi horror flick as a concept, this is a pretty decent article. It sorta failed Codeine's Mom, as I had to go to the Wikipedia page to learn about it. But, with knowledge of the basic plot and stuff, it makes sense.
Prose and formatting:	4	Quite a few spelling/grammatical mistakes. They don't particularly to seem to be on purpose, so might wanna fix 'em. (Or maybe I will) The grammatical errors were fixed, but the article sort of seems to just go off in random directions at points. Quite a few of the sentences are just "Joe did this," "Joe did that," making the article kinda clunky to read.
Images:	8	I'm gonna need therapy. Always love your zany images, Mr. Sequeira.
Miscellaneous:	7	Uhh.. Spell Miscellaneous? Taking away a half a point because the author was mean to me :(
Final Score:	30	This a good article. I don't personally believe that it's feature-worthy, but I think it's a good article nonetheless.
Reviewer:	WohMi, the Dueling King (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any "spelling/grammatical" mistakes, but if there are any, they're definitely intentional. I'm not illiterate. Nicolassequeira (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Never said you were. I can fix them for you. WohMi, the Dueling King (talk) 04:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

No, please don't. Just leave it as it is. As I said, any grammatical mistakes are intentional, and made for comedic effect. Thanks for your review. Nicolassequeira (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your vandalism. If you vandalize my article again, you immature little shithead, I'm going to leave this site forever and never make another edit. And if I'm banned for calling you a misogynistic racist assclown whose ideas on current affairs go from laughably naive to intentionally malicious, and whose entitled fuckboi condescension grates on the nerves, I don't care by now. I joined this godforsaken place over a year ago and in that time I've garnered nothing but disrespect and the same sort of inept roasts I got over on Reddit, and the quality of the site has gone downhill faster than a luge team. You fellows have a lot to learn about what constitutes humor, and how to keep literal alt-right extremists like Woh here off your site. Good luck with that. Nicolassequeira (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, that escalated quickly. MrX blow me 17:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not any of those things you've called me. How rude! My edits weren't "vandalism," they were intended to help. Especially on capitalization/grammar errors, and generally made it an easier article to read. Neither did I intend to be condescending. I only want to help, Nicolas. When you put it up for Pee Review, you acknowledged that it would be open to criticism. I did revert your edit before I edited on here, but I hope that you'll stick around. Who knows though, maybe I am an Ultratroll who is TRYING to get you to leave. If you stayed, I bet that would REALLY show me. WohMi, the Dueling King (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)