Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Worst Article ever

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Worst Article ever

It's a intentionally bad article. Review it like you would review this (Using reverse standards).

WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 10:23, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Could be used as an update on HTBFANJS, you know, in the manner of what not to do. Just a thought. *wanders off* --Sir Oliphaunte (განხილვა)   05:03, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

You are going to review this?--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 05:49, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

I'd review this, but it fails HTBFANJS by just being deliberately stupid. As such, you'd get 1 in every category. Hate it with the fiery passion of a thousand suns. So that's in a nutshell my review. Pop it on QVFD and spend your time trying to write something worth writing. Pup 09:20 09 Feb '12

You're so tasteless. Do you know what is a intentionally bad article? --WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 09:23, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It's an attempt to create an in-joke that is destined to fail. Like BBBBBBB. If you want a PEE review it should've reviewed by the PEE Guidelines (See the lovely link above). I will review this if you really want a review, but there are only so many synonyms for crap. Pup 09:30 09 Feb '12

Humour:	1	There is no humour. It is an utterly barren void of humourlessness that acts in a fashion that is reminiscent of explosive decompression. If something funny cam near it it would be sucked into the vacuum and never heard from again. It is potentially possible that there is a joke in here somewhere that is so subtle that in my disgust and anguish at being forced to read this mindless, shitty drivel that I missed it, but given that I have the limitation of being human it is difficult to find it. In looking for a redeemable joke I feel as though I have swum the breadth of the Indian Ocean trying to find a single frozen pea in there, not knowing that it was actually dropped into the Pacific. There is nothing. Nothing can be considered as a portmanteau of no thing, where thing relates to the existence of humour. This article actually creates a level of doubt as to the existence of humour. I feel like Richard Dawkins waking up one morning and thinking to himself Hang on a second - there is a God after all. And he is Paris Hilton. As a comparison to other articles of a similar ilk, Fisher Price reads as though it was written by Oscar Wilde on good day. AAAAAAAA holds the depth and complexity of a Shakespearian tragedy. Dan Kwon is a heart wrenching odyssey of self discovery that would make Margaret Thatcher weep like a newborn baby. There is absolutely no humour involved in this at all.
Concept:	1	So, going from the perspective of an intentionally bad article, you've failed. Here's why: HowTo:Write a Bad Uncyclopedia Article/Bad Uncyclopedia Article on wheels! was written as an intentionally bad article. But in order for it to work, it had to take a concept (related to Willy on Wheels - a long term Uncyclopedia vandal), combined with numerous other ideas, jumble them all together, and then stretch it to beyond breaking point. It's not just bad - it's horrifyingly bad. It's like watching Plan 9 from Outer Space type of bad. Your article, though, is just bad. It reads like someone has said to themselves Let's write a clichéed article and then put in minimal effort into it. To make something that is horrendous it takes a lot of effort. This reads like something thrown together in five minutes time. It's not even that good at being bad! There is so much derivative material in here I flicked into sections and thought Oh yeah, that's from... without even having to strain. Now at this point you're probably thinking to yourself So if I make it worse, it will be better. No. The other main issue is that the joke is stale - it has been done before so many times that trying to do the same joke again just comes across as lame. Putting more effort into it will mean that you've finally written an article that is bad, and dull. Nobody can make a remake of Plan 9 deliberately.
Prose and formatting:	3	Your layout is average. If you were aiming for bad, that means it's terrible. If you were aiming for clear and legible, there are enough issues with it to make it bad. So given that it's wishy washy, it get's a wishy washy score. Spelling and grammar were obviously bad, but done in such a way that it was obvious that it was meant to be bad. If there is no shock value in the attempt, then there is no source for humour from it.
Images:	1	I was simply bored by the images. They weren't bad enough to be terrible, or good enough to be good. Using MS Paint to badly chop images would have worked in your favour here, but as it is they're just yawn inspiring.
Miscellaneous:	1	Pop it on QVFD and spend your time trying to write something worth writing.
Final Score:	7	Okay, I've been generous on the layout as I couldn't work out what you were going for. I think you may have gotten the point I was making now though. And one other thing - please don't ask for a review on an article that has no redeeming value - it's a huge waste of your time and the reviewers. And you have 24 hours to QVFD this, or move to user space, before it goes to VFD.
Reviewer:	Pup 12:42 09 Feb '12