Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Al Gore (Colonization)

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archived

Guidelines

FAQ

Pee Week

Committee

RotM

Al Gore

Hello and ahoy on behalf of the Good Ol' Boys! Here's what we came up with after testing out the new system, and I very much like it. Let me whip up some stats for you.

This is what it looked like when I first placed the nomination tag on it.

This is what it looks like now after one week of work.

This is our outline/discussion page.

These are the people who helped:

• SysRq
• ThomasPynchonsLeftNut
• Optimuschris
• Thekillerfroggy
• Simsilikesims
• Sockpuppet of an unregistered user
• Colin "All your base" Heaney
• Gerrycheevers

So please review this as you would any other article. I'm anxious to see how we did! Thanks in advance. Oh, and PEEING members only please. Thanks again! —Sir SysRq (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very little, but as you apparently can't read (PEEING members only?) I think I'm gonna go ahead and put this back in the que. -OptyC Sucks! CUN21:20, 28 Feb

If my opinion is of so little weight (I read the article -- would you have been so indolent if I had given you a 50?), that's on you. Revert it, I'll live. -- FookYooChineseFood 21:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys. I really like communisms. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 21:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to step in. What Chris is talking about is that your review is of poor quality. Reviews should be a little more than one sentence. Check the guide for how to do a proper pee review. Also, in the future, when someone requests that only PEEING members do a review, please respect that wish. I'm going to revert your review now so that UU can review it, as he promised to do. —Sir SysRq (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all over this; stay away! This one's mine now! Sir Not A Good Username360 KUN 00:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think you fully understood the concept. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if I could defend the concept, it's very Conservapedia style. Rather than say that global warming doesn't exist, as their article on the subject does, we are saying that Al Gore, an advocate of global warming, does not exist. If that was not clear, please tell us how we could make it more clear. —Sir SysRq (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That's easy. Say, very clearly and in several times in the article, "Global Warming is the genuine truth, but Al Gore is a lie." Problem solved. Sir Not A Good Username360 KUN 01:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Weren't you guys looking for a PEEing member to review this instead? How come you aren't pointing it out for the second time? ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 01:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Because on IRC, NAGU told me that he was a member of PEEING. I did not follow through, because I thought I could trust him. Let's try this a third time. —Sir SysRq (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You never said on IRC it was exclusive to PEE members. You said you were desprate. I was rushing and didn't read the top, and for that, I am sorry. And not once did I say a was a PEE member. Please don't get mad at me. Sir Not A Good Username360 KUN 01:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

[2009-02-28 19:25:00] <NotAGoodUsername> SisReck: Which article?
[2009-02-28 19:25:04] <SisReck> Al Gore.
[2009-02-28 19:25:09] <SisReck> Are you in PEEING?
[2009-02-28 19:25:22] <NotAGoodUsername> Si.

Actually, you did. =)

And I'm not mad at you, thanks for doing the review on such short notice, just don't say you're in a position to do something when you aren't. Your review is noted and appreciated, we're just gonna have to revert it for a PEEING member to come do. —Sir SysRq (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I missundertood. Oh, well. Sir Not A Good Username360 KUN 01:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey sissy want me to do this? I got a bit of time and wasn't involved in the making of this one... I am on the IC though and understand if you don't want me to though. Sorry I couldn't work on this! School, the girl, and swim starting up is killing me ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 07:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if it took eight users to write this article, perhaps the same review should be written by eight different PEEers? ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 11:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I said I'd review it if you couldn't find another PEEING member to do it. If Tags is offering, I'll stand back and watch him go. If no-one fancies it, let me know in about an hour or so and I'll put the kettle on for a mug o' reviewin' strength tea... --UU - natter 16:36, Mar 1

Tags, let UU get this one. You got the next Colonization you're not involved in, kay? I just want UU to do the first one. —Sir SysRq (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course! ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 17:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to get it tomorrow evening then, urgent rl business has come up tonight. Tomorrow night, though, I have America's Next Top fucking Model to escape, so will have plenty of time. Until then... --UU - natter 20:30, Mar 1

Roger that. Perhaps this stage should be a little better fine tuned so that we have a reviewer already lined up Saturday. Oh well, live and learn. Thanks buddy. —Sir SysRq (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A tip guys, three words: Hall and Oates. They just fall for 'em. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 21:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake who gives a shit who reviews it. Tags or UU, just someone do it. As long as it's helpful and well done, I don't give a rat's ass. Just get it done. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 03:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, changed my mind and asked Tags to do it if UU doesn't do it soon. UU, if you come back and it's done, no big deal. Thanks for offering. I just want this thing done. —Sir SysRq (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, can you feel the patience in the room? ;-)

A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article is being reviewed by: UU - natter (While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead). (Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole).

(That means it's being done right now). --UU - natter 21:24, Mar 2

Humour:	8	Hmm, OK, on first readthrough, what we have here is a good old-fashioned good read article, with such goodies as subtlety, irony, satire and a certain amount of intelligence. Cool, that's right up my street, although I suspect those in search of "teh lulz" will not be particularly happy. So, let's get going then: why an eight, and not a nine or ten? Well, partly it's because it elicited some smirks and a chuckle or two, and I enjoyed reading it, but it didn't get too many out-and-out laughs - that's not a bad thing at all, this is a very enjoyable read, and I expect the final score to be pretty decent, but I think 8 is about right. What did I like? Well, most of it, to be fair. It takes a little time to warm up, humour-wise - the intro and first section are really setting the article up, and establishing the premise to good effect (although I like the conveniently dead cattle). After that, there are no real fallow periods. I particularly enjoyed him not appearing in the photos he took, the computer and voting records in the 80s bit, Bush beingproved a wise choice by history (surely an opportunity to link to Sys's recent Bush article that I'm too lazy to search for right now?), the Mars argument, selling hybrid cars, and the ending is pretty nice too. So as I say, no major problems at all, and a thoroughly enjoyable read.
Concept:	10	No problem here - a good, coherent concept with plenty of mileage. You've used it well, and managed to be pretty consistent about it too, which I was worried about, given the number of cooks involved with this broth. You've also avoided the trap of getting too ridiculous, I think - I did wonder if it would get silly if you ran out of ideas to keep the fairly serious tone going, but that didn't turn out to be an issue. I don't have much to add here - good job!
Prose and formatting:	8	Excellent, in the main, which given the standard of writers involved is no surprise. Slightly inconsistent here and there though, but nothing a few tweaks wouldn't deal with. First off, there are a couple of areas where things about Al are written as facts - without being qualified as "allegedly" or whatever. Now I realise that there's a fine line between sufficient repetition and too bloody much, but to make the article work properly, I think you need to make sure it never presents anything about him in an unqualified fashion - "He has served as United States Vice President, Senator, and Representative, and has also served as a military journalist during the Vietnam War", for instance, or the start of the "Environmentalism" section, where you're directly stating he did things, and that needs to be addressed. Also, the fact that he can be seen in the film is something I think needs addressing for the sake of consistency, surely him being on screen proves his existence? Shouldn't be too hard to deal with though - how about noting there were some visual effects staff credited for a documentary film? Surely it's not too hard to infer from that that Al Gore himself was the only visual effect in the film? Something like that, anyway, as it needs addressing for consistency's sake. As for spelling and grammar problems, there aren't really any, although to maintain my reputation I really need to find at least one! Ah, got it - in the "Run for President" section, "write-in ballots" needs to be hyphenated. Phew!
Images:	8	The right number, well spread through the article, supporting the prose nicely, and well captioned. The eight here is the same as the eight for humour - they're all nicely done and work well with the article, but are not gonna get any big laughs as such. Again, this is not a bad thing, but I think it means an 8 is a fair score.
Miscellaneous:	8.5	Averaged via the pee template, partly because I don't know what else to put here, partly because I know it pisses TKF off. =P
Final Score:	42.5	I really enjoyed this, good work folks, and thanks for a really decent read. I'd like to see the consistency tweaks I mentioned above get made to it, so I'm not rushing off to no it right now, but on the off-chance that you're all too bashful to self-nom this, give me a shout when it's been tweaked, and I'll do the honours. A good start for the new IC - hope it continues!
Reviewer:	--UU - natter 22:05, Mar 2