Written by Everyotherusernamewastaken, who has requested a pee review in his article.
Anton (talk) 17:21, May 26, 2014 (UTC)
{{Review_request|17:21, May 26, 2014 (UTC)}}
Reviewed[edit]
A little bit about the reviewer
How and why is it funny? Any suggestions?
0.5
Very unfunny. Seriously lacking humour. You should see HTBFANJS.
How good is an idea behind the article?
1
You said:
“I should know because I know everything about who have and who haven't covered their schlongs in culinary dishes or fluids.”
~ You on Method acting
Rule number 2 on creating an article:
- Do not create Vanity articles
saying that you know something is vanity.
The whole concept is stupid.
How good does it look and how well does it read?
4
The Daniel Day-Lewis section makes no sense at all.
How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting?
10
The article's overall quality - that indefinable something.
5
An overall summation of the article.
You really need to work on this. It really deserves to go to VFD
Avg score: 3.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-- Talk 18:23, May 26, 2014 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{{ReviewLite}}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This was a Pee Review by -- Talk 18:23, May 26, 2014 (UTC)
Reviewed[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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 18:31, May 28, 2014 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The formatting and writing style isn't bad, but the content is lacking. The whole concept behind your article seems to be: Method acting is covering your schlong in coleslaw or other substances. The method behind your article is describing people who have done that. Yet the introduction indicates that method acting is acting in character on and off the stage. This concept has a lot more potential than merely covering the sexual organs in food substances. I agree however, that the last section of the article makes no sense. It isn't tied into your concept in any way, and no explanation is given of who this person is. This gives the article a very unfinished feel. As the article stands now, it is VFD quality, but I believe you could improve it to an average article, and the concept has potential to become a feature-worthy article, if done right. Consider a character in a comedy movie acting in character on and off the screen. Picture several famous comedians using method acting rather than only getting in character while filming. I think this has better potential. Covering the schlong in coleslaw is basically a one-shot joke, it can still be used, but it isn't a good enough joke to base the whole article off of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Talk 18:23, May 26, 2014 (UTC)