Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Wooden Spoon

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Wooden Spoon

Just a simple review is all I require. Thanks

--TheGreenOne 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	6	Sadly, I was not laughing at this article, aside from the light chuckle here and there. I know that you tried on this article, and that you {most likely} have read HTBFANJS, but it doesn’t change the fact that this article did not stand out or shine. Another snag this article hit was the fact that, frankly, it looks more like a humourous Wikipedia article, rather then a satire-ridden Uncyclopedia article.
Concept:	7	Unfortunately, I did not think this to be an insanely unique concept, seeing as to how spoon, and fork, and even knife already exist. This article presented itself as a believable format, and even though it is one of the better articles of the series on Silver (or in this case, wooden) ware, it lacks an outstanding, truly unique way of looking at things. Unfortunately, I can’t think of a way to improve this because, simply, this is the way it is.
Prose and formatting:	4.4	While you did not have many grammar mistakes, per say, you did have a few problems with using periods where a comma or a semicolon would have worked a bit better. A period indicates that you have finished with a thought, and in many cases, your period only seemed to indicate that you wanted to take a breath before going on. In many instances throughout your article, different marks would have done a bit better (I have reworked the first paragraph under Uses as an example). Furthermore, you ran into a couple of fragments (“This is unlikely not to happen” for example, is just too short) Another problem that you ran into HARD at the end was the insane amount of red links. I deduct from score .2 points for each red link, which came out to be 8 red links (a 1.6 deduction.) Believe me, red links NEVER help out an article. I would recommend that, unless you cannot find a relevant link, that you remove the broken links.
Images:	5	In an article of this length, I would have expected to have seen one more image then there was, and the current image you had was, although relevant, simply was not humourous. To find a relevant picture, check out the Homeless images, and see if any fit your needs. Another little kink, the Wikipedia reference is floating directly under the edit function, which looks, frankly, a bit crowded.
Miscellaneous:	5.6	Avg’d as per Pee Review guidelines
Final Score:	28	I always hand out homework to Pee Review, and here are your assignments Put in another relevant picture, and make it funny. Fix the fragments and flow of the article Remove the red links Think of the highest quality jokes you can put in Don’t fall into using any clichés to make this article. Uncyclopedia, not Wikipedia. Despite what this score indicates, I do not think that this article is VFDable. I did enjoy reading this article, and it does have the ability to become featured, but at the time, it needs work to get up there. Go on out, and give it your best shot!
Reviewer:	Warm regards, Javascap 12:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)