Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/debating

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

debating

Bsudjg 15:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	3	Your humour is fairly low quality on this article. You have gone for a serious approach for writing, but you do not have enough jokes throughout your article. You can make this funnier by going for a more deadpan approach. Take a look at James Bond (character). See how it is both serious and funny? Go for that approach. You will need to add and expand this article. You need to go more in-depth for debating. Add a sub heading, called “Rules of debating,” and explain all the rules for debating, with deadpan humour. Add a sub heading, called “A typical debate,” and make the debate be serious at the start but slowly becoming random with the debaters yelling. Expand on “Debating.” Explain its history: Who developed debating? When was debating developed? Under “Typical score-sheet,” under ‘clothing,’ ‘speaking style’ and ‘display of extremist ideology,’ to make the lists more humourous, make the things that are worth most points are something more ridiculous, for example: Clothing list - Shirt and tie = 1 point. Scarf = 1 point. Beret = 2 points. Court Wig = 5 points. Pimp suit with cane = 10 points. Huge clock around neck = 12 points. Speaking style - Punctuate your speeches with “um”, “like” and “y’know” = 1 point. Deliver in clear, concise sentences with effective use of pauses = 1 point. Instead of breathing, insert the phrase “ladies and gentlemen” = 3 points. Talking bat fuck insane = 9 points Display of extremist ideology - Rampaging feminism = 1 point Communism = 2 points Republicanism = 3 points Klestosapharot = 5 points Bensonism = 20 points List how many bonus points will be given for the debating terminology, because you have listed the amount of points for other parts of debating, so points are needed for this. Delete the automatic last place part of “Typical score-sheet,” since it is not funny. Change the true story part under “Competition” to ‘True story: At a recent debating competition a Japanese team opposed the motion that ‘Uncyclopedia is better than Wikipedia,’ reasoning that if Uncyclopedia was taught to school children then robots would destroy humanity mercilessly.’
Concept:	5	The concept is not original, since there is an article called debate already, but your approach to this is interesting, and to expand it you could make your article have deadpan humour to it.
Prose and formatting:	5	The writing style is serious, but you need to make it deadpan too. I saw 1 grammar mistake, which is under “Competition,” you need to change ‘misinterpret the motion due to their poor English skills’ to ‘misinterpret the motion due to their excellent language skills’ since debating is all about the use of language. You need to fix up your quote at the start. Do it via the more commonly used quoting prose, which would be “I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don’t even invite me.” ~ Dave Barry on debating . If you want to, add another quote to the article, because two quotes are better than one. Under “Typical score-sheet,” put hyperlinks for the words ‘fit in’ and ‘normal.’ Hyperlink ‘fit in’ with ‘Ape-Shit Crazy’ and ‘normal’ with ‘insane.’ You could add the undisputed template. Make the debating terminology quotes italic.
Images:	0	No images. No article is complete unless it has at least 1 image. Take a look at the two images from Debate, because you could use those pictures with your article, but you would need to change the caption.
Miscellaneous:	3.3	Used the pee formula.
Final Score:	16.3	This article can be saved, but you will need to do alot of work to save it.
Reviewer:	--Docile hippopotamus 01:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)