Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/soap operas
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Soap Operas[edit source]
I saved re-wrote this article (conservation week an' all) and I'm sure it's better than it was but thought I'd put it up for Pee Review as it can always be better. N.B i'm not taking credit for the Maths equation that was Luck (another user, not random chance that has positive benefits.) most of the rest was me though, call it a joint effort.
orian57 01:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Humour: | 4 | Maybe it's because I've become immune to anything to do with soaps, but I didn't find this funny. Most of it is actually quite true, which, while not exactly bad, could use a twist or two to add humour. The math equation part is just confusing rather than funny IMO, and the list "Mysterious..." is like all Uncyc lists, that is to say, cliché and unfunny. It also feels a bit short, as if there is more expected from the article. |
Concept: | 4 | Going off on the |
Prose and formatting: | 3 | A couple of points here. First of all, articles shouldn't have their paragraphs indented with the colon (like you would in the forums), which this article does a couple of times. Secondly, some of your capitalisation is a bit off (such as the Perfect Soap recipe). Thirdly, you have too many pictures there IMO for the length, and it's just cluttering up the article. Fourthly, and probably most importantly, don't, ever, sign your articles, as it annoys, well, everyone. Your spelling is good though. |
Images: | 5 | As I said above, there are too many of them here for this length of article, and you need to take out one, maybe even two of them to help the flow of the article. Also, the only picture that I found on-topic and funny was the blak-and-white one. A good picture that can really relate to the article could really help it. |
Miscellaneous: | 4 | n/a |
Final Score: | 20 | This just doesn't feel finished right now. This needs a bit of an expansion and a lot of polishing before it can become a good article, but it does have a good chance if you work on it. |
Reviewer: | –—Hv (talk) 10/03 16:08 |