Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Eat People (Resubmit)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Why?:Eat People[edit source]
I'd like to know if this article is VFH material. My last review for it got good marks. (My username has changed from being banjo2E, in case you're wondering.) --SPY Administrator (Complain|I rock|In memoriam) HMRFRA 
WH 12:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
| Humour: | 6 | Quite funny in points. I liked the links taking you to other pages (an under-used feature in uncyclopedia, if you ask me - which you didn't...), I liked the Why?:Eat People#Especially good if you aren't a person bit and most of the jokes were reasonable. Only one that made me cringe was the zerg bit. |
| Concept: | 6 | yeah, not bad. Would have liked it if this was combined with a "how to" on the same subject. I also found that it could have been a tad more consistant, ie had a constant theme running through it ie one above and beyond just eting people. As it is, each paragraph just seemed to go off on a tangent, especially after "over-population" |
| Prose and formatting: | 7 | Well written. Not brilliantly, but decently. It would take a lot for me to give more than an 8 in this category anyway, and I don't think such a thing matters if the humour is right. |
| Images: | 6 | If anything, too many. Remove one or two. My faves were the gory one (second from top - also best comment...) and the sign with the man with the knife and fork by his head (bottom right). I hated the top one - you can't read what is written without squinting. |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | The links will never be read, the oscar wilde quote is unneccesary and I didn't like the pagan bit. The rest of it was ok-to-good. |
| Final Score: | 31 | Yes, I am a tough reviewer. Yes someone else would have given you a higher score. Yes, your article is probably better than all of mine. I just say it as I see it. I hope you have found my comments constructive and use them to make the article better. Ask other people, also. I'm down on uncyclopedia atm (though I honestly believe yours would need to be improved a lot before being up there with the best. Trust me, I would give it a 5 without even blinking - with constructive criticism - so don't think that I hate it, I just think there is a lot more you could do with it...). I reviewed yours as it was at the bottom and had the bitter expeirence of waiting 2 weeks for my own to be reviewed not long ago. Once again, I hope you find it useful. |
| Reviewer: | Step13 22:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |