Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/A Tinge of Minge (Resubmit)

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archived

Guidelines

FAQ

Pee Week

Committee

RotM

A Tinge of Minge

I've given the minges a good once over and now I'm re-entering them for another appraisal (Although preferably not from that bloke who reviewed it last time then kept reducing the bloody score every 5 minutes). (I've got loads more minge jokes up my sleeve ... or should that be I've got loads more sleeve jokes up my minge? Geoffprickett 11:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll Review this, for now forget minges and enjoy Noel with this coupon... — Sir Sycamore (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A Free Coupon For a bumming session with Noel Fielding

Oo er! I'd rather have the minges. Geoffprickett 17:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	6.8	Pretty good, I like this one. There a few issues with formatting which I’ll go through. One of the first things is the shorter sections. I like to see fuller paragraphs filling out the topic and providing fuller description of the topic. I like the way you've weaved quite a few culture points, and references well (pans people, TOTP, BBC, one of my articles:) Intro, Good seems encyclopaedic, not like some awful first person ones, real kudos form me on that one. Feels short though here, seems to rest on the article title than on the prose, maybe somehow add a few more jokes here, and maybe more description. 1st section, Lists = bad I would somehow get the names to fit in more fully here as this will be more funny, use of bold text here does not work so well. Lots of gags here, and very funny (the articles you've written have all made me laugh) - I think tiding the prose, more links and this will have no issues. A mistake here which often occurs s having separate section for subsections, therefore the good way is: Mingettes: main The group Subsection: work outside of totp Stuff about outside work In such a way you'll give a much more sourced and professional look to your article 2nd section, as I mentioned this could be merged with the previous, short, funny probably a bit orphaned from the whole, less linkege and "grammar" than some of the rest, little details go a long way. 3rd section, more lists, bad. I think this should be all merged with the first, it’s not really in a good place to be filled out - This is a weaker point here. 4th section, very good, good old fashioned humour here, not as subtle as is the aim, but still good again, like large aspects f the page, feel like a bit more filling out is needed. 5th section, this is the best section Grammatically and in terms of length, perhaps not as obviously funny, but still very good, nicely filled out and detailing the topic well, platy of references and so forth. Very good, again a bit of further polishing and work could be the ticket. Conclusion, this is the best conclusion I really laughed here, this is a good one to have brief as the impact is greater. No gripes here.
Concept:	6.5	The best I've seen in a while, very funny, not stupid yet simple and coherent, written in a good encyclopaedic style. It’s difficult to say much here
Prose and formatting:	5	Quite a few errors Bolded text inappropriately, lists, minor errors such as "she continue to dance" as opposed to "she continued to dance" there are few such errors like "tv" instead of "TV" etc. I would submit it to UN:PROOF as it could do with a once over. I think it needs more linkage and use of subsections. Further expansion is also need to get the whole thing away from being a little stubbish. Poor images are also holding back the piece. {{Nowikipedia}} is a little redundant, I would not bother having it, it looks amateurish
Images:	4.5	Too small, too few - I think bigger ones often look better, particularly as the goal ifs humour, not informative. They are both appropriate and aligned correctly, they could be funnier however. You can get a custom made one here - Images can be quite important as a huge aspect of the site is drawing readers in, it’s worth putting some time into these.
Miscellaneous:	6.5	Very good, I am regarded as the "Bastard Reviewer" and I am far more critical than any of the other active reviewers at the moment - so don't be upset if my one seems to give lower scores and harsher criticism. Overall the article needs a little more work, I know Mhaille did a Minge article, but it’s, kindly put not one of his best. I thin this could be a VFH contender with more work - and it's a very good article, regardless of your noobishness.
Final Score:	29.3	I hope I have been helpful, should you have any quires or need any help, just leave a note on my talkpage:)
Reviewer:	— Sir Sycamore (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)