Acataua (talk) 00:39, July 15, 2017 (UTC)
|
|
Added 00:39, July 15, 2017 (UTC)
|
[[Template:Review request/{{#time: ymd|00:39, July 15, 2017 (UTC)]]
Some Ideas[edit]
A little bit about the reviewer
How and why is it funny? Any suggestions?
{{{Hscore}}}
How good is an idea behind the article?
{{{Cscore}}}
How good does it look and how well does it read?
{{{Pscore}}}
How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting?
{{{Iscore}}}
The article's overall quality - that indefinable something.
{{{Mscore}}}
An overall summation of the article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TillDillBill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've had a look at the article, I have some points to help you flesh it out a bit more:
- The internet's popularity will plummet if Net Neutrality laws are loosened. What this does is it allows ISP (Internet Service Providers) to run the internet like a set-top box (e.g. Foxtel). This would turn a lot of people off.
- You could explain in layman's terms why you can't physically take it out. (Or make silly things up, for instance saying that you need the right sort of electricity to interface with the central servers in the desert)
- Social Media would take up a reasonable percentage as well (say 0.5%), as many people store photos of their food on it.
- Banning memes would reduce it
- Everyone may move to the dark net, so you may want to warn whoever follows this article that they will need to keep this in mind.
Overall, good start. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This was a Pee Review by TillDillBill
- Yes, I agree, but with reason one, this isn't Wikipedia. It's uncyclopedia, the site of funny.--Acataua (talk) 21:58, July 15, 2017 (UTC)
{{{Yes}}}
Yes
Yes