Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Visual puns

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Visual puns

Second review. -- 03:35, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Since I reviewed it the first time, I think I should do this one--User:CandidToaster/sig 05:29, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Humour:	7	Though you didn't change much, this was significantly funnier from your last try, since you focused more on the visual aspect of puns than just bad ones. I applaud your change, and I think the concept has a lot more potential because of it. The visual puns are funny (as before), but please, make the pop up pictures smaller, since they're sort of annoying
Concept:	7	It was a good idea to switch to visual puns, since your original article was mostly composed of them. As I've said before, everyone loves a good self-demonstrating article, and I think you should stick to what you did. Maybe add more pictures?
Prose and formatting:	7.5	Some people aren't big fans of centered images, but you shouldn't listen to them, as they're in serious need of a diet. It looks like you fixed the grammatical errors, so that's a plus.
Images:	8	The images are the most important part of your article, and the images you've picked were okay, but what makes them really funny were the captions. Everyone loves a good visual pun, and you certainly delivered.
Miscellaneous:	5.5	The reason this score is low is because if I rated it higher, the final score wouldn't reflect the opinion that I have of this article.
Final Score:	35	You've certainly improved this article, and your decision to change the title to "visual puns' has certainly added to the humor. It seems mostly finished to me (the way you approached the subject doesn't lend itself to long article making), but, if you do want to expand and improve upon, I think you should add more pictures. Terribly sorry that this review wasn't very long, but you didn't change much.
Reviewer:	--User:CandidToaster/sig 05:29, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

If you didn't want me to review the article again, then I'm sorry. Is there a rule against that sort of thing?-User:CandidToaster/sig 05:29, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

I think there is, but I'm okay with it. I might re-nom it though, just to get someone else's point of view. Annyway, thanks for the review, man! -- 13:55, June 7, 2011 (UTC)