Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Bill Belichick

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archived

Guidelines

FAQ

Pee Week

Committee

RotM

Bill Belichick

Iamhungey 21:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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).

I'll handle this. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 11:12, May 27

Hang on, why did you raise the review request when you don't seem to have made any edits to the article? Whatever, one review coming up.

Humour:	2	Oh dear, that's not a good score, is it? Basically, what we have here is quite a random article, with lots of name-dropping, rape "jokes", no consistency, and the like. Please, as it says on the talk page, have a good read of HTBFANJS - despite the name, it's a collection of comedy writing tips that may help you understand what we're aiming for around here.
Concept:	2	Well, there isn't one. A concept is a key element in writing a good article, and you shouldn't really start without one. The closest you come to one is the "conquer the world" thing which rears its head more than once, but it doesn't stick around. A good concept continues throughout the article, and defines how you write it. For instance, you could start with the content of the equivalent wikipedia page, and then cleverly subvert it in a satirical fashion (note: that doesn't mean change every line to be the opposite). Or you could write a fictional biography, or write an article on the man in the style of his TV interviews or something - basically, have a central thread from which to hang some jokes. Writing articles tends to be easier when you have a concept, and you might find jokes a bit easier to come by as well.
Prose and formatting:	4	Formatting's OK, but there are too many quotes (one or two at the top of an article tends to be a good rule of thumb), too many red links, and too little coherence between the sections. The prose doesn't flow at all, and sometimes sentences don't follow on at all from the previous one. Oh, and the grammar isn't that hot either. If this gets improved as an article, you might want to give the proofreading service a call.
Images:	4	4 images. Of which one is relevant, one is semi-relevant and captioned to be relevant, and two are pretty well pointless. Not great.
Miscellaneous:	3	Averaged
Final Score:	15	As this review request was raised by someone other than the author, I'm not sure this will be seen and have much effect, but nonetheless: this needs work. Plenty of work. It is far too random, and relies on name-dropping and insults instead of actual humo(u)r. The main thrust of my advice has been given, but to recap: read HTBFANJS, remove most of the quotes, think of a coherent central concept, and then rewrite it sticking to that concept throughout. And possibly get it proofread once it's done. Hope somebody hears this, if not, I suspect this may be in danger of deletion.
Reviewer:	--SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 11:34, May 27

If this gets slapped with a rewrite tag in the future, I am so stealing it. I know the source of this man's power!--- Cheapinitreal (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)