User:TheLedBalloon/PRG

Gonna give shortening UN:PRG a serious go. Let's see how this turns out...

---

Pee Review is a valuable resource for getting constructive feedback on your article. Since it's such a potentially great thing, it has massive potential for abuse. Don't be the guy everyone has to dislike for fucking with it. Basically, don't be mean or stupid, and try to keep everything in perspective--all humor is subjective, so who knows who'll like what? Don't take offense, and don't be offensive, and remember that it's all for the good of your article.

Submitting

Before you submit your page, make sure you have a page first. Put in some actual effort before a review--the reviewers aren't here to write your page for you, just to give you some improvement tips. Create your review page using that handy box on the pee review main page, and type out anything you think the reviewer should know about the page, or any specific things you'd like them to look at for you. Hit save page, and be ready to wait. It could be a day or it could be three weeks before your page is reviewed. To move things along, do a review for someone else--this decreases the size of the queue, increasing your page's odds of being reviewed.

Once you get a review, be open to criticism. If you don't want to hear that your page isn't perfect, don't submit it. Take criticism seriously and be ready to do some work on your page. You want it to be good, right? If your review was particularly helpful, the {{Golden Shower Award}} is always much appreciated. If you get a lousy review, just revert it and ask for another one. Be wary, though, that you might be insulting someone by saying that their reviewmanship needs work.

Once you've worked on everything the reviewer mentioned or want a second opinion, create a new pee review entry and put "(resubmit)" after your article's title.

Reviewing

Just like writing articles, people have different styles of reviewing and there is no 'right or wrong' way. If you put some effort in, and give useful advice you contribution will be very welcome.

Writing a genuinely helpfully Pee Review is not an easy task. Just like writing good articles, doing a good Pee Review takes time and effort. No one will to be grateful if you just give a score for each category but do not explain why you gave it.

Basics

Don't be a dick. Writing is tricky, and it's easy to shoot some new user down. Don't make the writers feel like crap. Feeling like crap sucks. Don't make the review about the author, either. You're not reviewing "UncycUser66's" merit as a noob, you're reviewing this page he wrote. Point noobs towards HTBFANJS and UN:BEST, and discourage lists and excessive randomness--unless, of course, the lists or randomness are funny.

The pee review categories work like this:

Humour:	7	Probably the most important, article-wise. How funny is it? Why is it funny? How can it be funnier? Suggestions for improvement and highlights of specific problems are very helpful.
Concept:	9	How good an idea is behind the article? Is it original with lots of potential? Could the concept be expanded and in what way?
Prose and formatting:	8	The writing style, spelling, grammar, layout and overall appearance. Is it written in an encyclopedic style? If not, are there good reasons for this? Does the voice work?
Images:	5	How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting? If the writer has no photochopping skills, encourage the use of captions to make normal images funny.
Miscellaneous:	7.3	Either use Template:Pee to workout an average for you ({{pee|7|9|8|5}} in this case), or give a score to compensate for the article's overall quality--something that can't always be assessed by the previous numbers alone.
Final Score:	36.3	Overall summation. How much can it be improved and what are the most important areas to work on.
Reviewer:	Please sign using the normal ~~~~

Your score for each category should be considered independently of the others. If the article is riddled with spelling mistakes and terrible pictures, but still made you wet you pants laughing, it still gets a 10 for humour. Likewise if it's a brilliant idea, but has not been well exploited you should give a high score for concept. It is absolutely necessary to add comments based on your score, to tell the author why you scored it that way, as well as to give the author advice to improve the article.

Scoring works like so:

• [10]==Brilliant. No mistakes. (50 holy crap, I wet my pants!).
• [9]===Way above average: probably VFH (45)
• [8]===More than adequate: might be VFH (40)
• [7]===Adequate, the average article (35)
• [6]===Nearly adequate (30)
• [5]===Inadequate. Might be Rewrite. (25)
• [4]===Might be VFD/NRV/Rewrite (20)
• [3]===Probably VFD/NRV (15)
• [2]===Probably VFD/QVFD (10)
• [1]===Probably QVFD (5)
• [0]===Doesn't exist, no attempt. Reserved for the Iscore of articles without pictures ONLY.

It is obviously very difficult to judge what 'adequate' is as what one reviewer may consider average will be different than another. When starting to review for the first time consider taking a look at some reviews which have been already been done and try to find what appears to be a consensus between them. Over time, as you become more experienced you will become better at giving scores. When in doubt, give an average score.

Remember that what is written in the comments section is far more useful than the actual scores you give, but be aware that most users take the score seriously simply because they are the most objective part of the review.