Reviewed twice. It needs more tweaking, however. Please include detailed advice in your review. Le Cejak • <-> 23:54, Nov 13
Alright, let's do this! -Razorflame 
(contributions) Talk 04:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
| Humour:
|
8.8
|
*Intro(7)-Feels like it's lacking humour from my standpoint, but I know that you would rather hear that it is funny, which I think it is in one light, but not the other. I think you need to rework this intro to make it understandable to us normal users.
- Step 1:Part 1(10)-This was actually funny! Kudos!
- Step 1:Part 2(9)-Humour was there, but a little dry for my tastes. Maybe fix this up a little?
- Step 1:Part 3(10)-Nothing needs to be changed here. Funny.
- Step 2:Part 1(6)-This did not feel funny at all. Change this please and make it more funny. Maybe add some more word play?
- Step 2:Part 2(7)-This did not feel funny at all. Change this please and make it more funny. Maybe add some more word play? Exact same as the last one.
- Step 2:Part 3(10)-There you go! You finally did it right!
- Step 3(9)-Funny up until the last bolded heading. Then, it gets a little unfunny. Otherwise, good part.
- Step 4(9)-Funny in a WTF? kind of way. The last part, with the list, is funny, but I think you should revert the list into paragraph form. You should also move the template to the top of the article.
|
| Concept:
|
10
|
Original concept that is fully fleshed out. Enough said.
|
| Prose and formatting:
|
9
|
Near perfect grammar and formatting. Just a little typo here and there, otherwise, perfect.
|
| Images:
|
10
|
Images that actually have humourous captions. Astounding!
|
| Miscellaneous:
|
9.5
|
Average of the other 4 scores.
|
| Final Score:
|
47.3
|
Fix what I've said above. Otherwise, good article!
|
| Reviewer:
|
-Razorflame (contributions) Talk 04:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
|
(contributions) Talk 04:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)