Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Spring shoe

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archived

Guidelines

FAQ

Pee Week

Committee

RotM

Spring shoe

faxmawashere 21:14, 16 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).

OK, I'll take this one, but be warned: it may not be pretty. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 10:49, May 20

Humour:	2	Sorry to be blunt here, but there just isn't anything coherent enough in here to be funny. For an article to make people laugh, first they need to be able to follow it, and I can make head nor tail of this. Please have a good, thorough read of HTBFANJS - despite the name, it's just a collection of comedy writing tips that can help you get a better feel for how to make the article funny. Then have a good look at what I've written in the next two sections of this review.
Concept:	1	There really is no concept. Oh, you want to write something about shoes with springs attached, fine. But there's no central idea to hang the article off - a good article needs a central thread from which you hang your comedic gems, this hasn't got one. You need to work out how you're going to structure the article, and make it all coherent, so that one section follows on from another (and hell, even so that one line follows on from another). You can't just write down whatever comes into your head in the order it occurs to you and expect others to find it funny.
Prose and formatting:	4	This score is for prose and formatting. The formatting is fine - properly laid out and linked and so forth. That's where these points came from. The prose by itself would get a much lower score. Masses of typos, grammatical anomalies galore, and seemingly random approach to the article structure make it all but impossible to follow. Normally in a review, I try to list the most glaring spelling and grammar errors in this bit, but frankly I could copy and paste most of the article. Try copying the article into Word and using the grammar and spellcheck in there - it's not perfect, but it should help eliminate quite a few of the more glaring issues.
Images:	6	There are 5. Of which, 3 are relevant, and not badly captioned. Then there are two gifs, one of which is completely unrelated, and the other (the Batman one) is captioned well, but is so overused that I'm bored sick of it. but that's not your fault, so I won't mark you down for it. The image score is easily the best score for this article.
Miscellaneous:	3.3	Yes, this article is incredibly miscellaneous.
Final Score:	16.3	Wow, I really don't know what to say. I hate giving negative reviews, but just can't help it here - this article is a mess, and needs serious work. Get a concept, maybe keep some of the pics, but kill all the text and start again, using a spellchecker and a grammar checker where possivble, and paying attention to HTBFANJS would be my advice in a nutshell. Sorry to be so harsh, but I'm not going to mislead you: as it stands, this would be a leading candidate for deletion. Mind you, this is only my opinion, others are available if you disagree with it. And good luck!
Reviewer:	SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 11:09, May 20