Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/100 Things your parents think your doing

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archived

Guidelines

FAQ

Pee Week

Committee

RotM

100 Things your parents think your doing

vladimirKruscecev 23:47, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Humour:	3	Sorry to say this, but your article kinda deserves the ICU tag currently attached to it. You seem to have an idea here, and a good one at that, but the execution is downright terrible. Let's start with the quotes. They could have been written better but they manage to give me an idea of what this article is about i.e parents who either get suspicious of what their kids keep doing in their rooms, or parents who have a pretty good idea but won't do anything to check them. Unfortunately, after the badly written introduction, your article degenerates into a list which quickly gets repetitive and lame. There's absolutely no elaboration or even a witty remark about anything on the list, and beyond a point most entries begin to seem like filler, just so that you could reach the 100-mark. The follow-up paragraphs consist entirely of cheap randumbo and fail to salvage your article.
Concept:	5	Again, this is a reasonable concept, but very poorly executed. I think the 100 point list is probably a bad idea, since you'll be spending so much time thinking about how to complete the list, you'll lose sight of your basic objective- to make the article funny. I think you should change the name to something more appropriate like "The dark secrets of your room", and restructure the page accordingly. You need to look at your concept from a completely new angle if you're going to make something decent out of this, I'm afraid.
Prose and formatting:	2	The formatting is okay, except for that huge whitespace near the end of the list, but your writing remains positively atrocious. Incoherent paragraphs and nonsensical lines continue to plague this article, which give a bad impression to the reader. You really, really need to polish up your writing skills if you want your article to reach an acceptable standard around here.
Images:	4	Not much to say about the images. They're few and scattered but seem to be in line with your concept so, meh.
Miscellaneous:	3	Maybe it was good you put this up for review. This article needs a lot of work.
Final Score:	17	Your article, in its current state, is a mess. I'd suggest you follow the advice detailed in my above review, and take a good read at BGBU and HTBFANJS, two very, very useful articles for those who want to know how to write up stuff that actually works around here.
Reviewer:	--Scofield & Friends 16:04, July 21, 2011 (UTC)