Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Uhhhhh oohhhhhh

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archived

Guidelines

FAQ

Pee Week

Committee

RotM

Uh oh!

Now with even more H's and O's than before! -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 06:32, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 06:32, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

The last review simply suggested that the article "needs more humor." Still, I would like a second opinion, preferably one that has more review. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:40, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Humour:	7	Before I begin, I know I am a noob, and even reviewing your article might come off as me trying to be a dick (especially after the last noobs review - yeah, I saw the dickness), but I am trying to be useful. It's humor wasn't bad. I particularly liked the bit where the film producers stole the script from the Russians by force and were conveniently deported to Russia only to go to jail for interacting with Russians. There was plenty of funny jokes all around, but just as many details in between. To me, the details weren't necessarily bad. In fact, they led me into the jokes and helped make for witty humour (well, wittier than others).
Concept:	9	You show a great understanding of this nonexistant movie, and did a wonderful job showing it in your article.
Prose and formatting:	8	The article was consistant, easy to follow, and didn't make me want to rip my eyes out. I feel that the plot section of the article could use some improvement. The quote used was funny-ish, but in a stupid way whereas the rest of your article has slightly witty humour.
Images:	10	The images you used in this article were both funny and on subject.
Miscellaneous:	10	So, again I like the article and I wasn't trying to be a dick about the quote in the Plot section (it could just be me).
Final Score:	44	I enjoyed your article, and I hope this was more of an actual review than the last one. I know it was a short review (like the last review), but I hope I gave some actually useful input on your article.
Reviewer:	- Big★Duck ☭ 03:28, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Your review is definitely better than the last one, and I'm not just saying that because you were nicer. In fact, you might have been too nice. When doing a review, you shouldn't hold anything back, you just need to phrase things in a constructive way and not a destructive way. Break things down section-by-section and point out specifically what works best and what doesn't work at all. You already do that a bit, so it's a good try from a noob. Everyone gets better with time! -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:10, June 7, 2011 (UTC)