Legolas11 11:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC) The point of Pee Review is... 13:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Are you pointing out that the article submitted was not written by the person who entered them for review Guildy? --ChiefjusticeDS 20:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Oh I see.... my bad. --ChiefjusticeDS 20:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC) I'm here. --ChiefjusticeDS 18:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdfs:label
| - Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Liberal bias
|
| rdfs:comment
| - Legolas11 11:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC) The point of Pee Review is... 13:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Are you pointing out that the article submitted was not written by the person who entered them for review Guildy? --ChiefjusticeDS 20:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Oh I see.... my bad. --ChiefjusticeDS 20:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC) I'm here. --ChiefjusticeDS 18:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| dcterms:subject
| |
| Mcomment
| - My overall grade of the article.
|
| Pcomment
| |
| Icomment
| - As I said already, images are needed, if you are stuck for ideas then why not consider something like, a picture of Obama for the later sections and maybe a conservapedia logo, something in that vein with an intelligently written caption could add a great deal to this article. Sort it out please!
|
| Pscore
| |
| Ccomment
| - You have a good concept and it can be made into a solid article. With regard to tone you should make sure that if you are going to use the encyclopaedic tone then you avoid deviating in the article. If the article is supposed to be pro conservative then this can be incorporated appropriately. To do so effectively you need to remove any reference to the reader and also any opinions. As it is at the moment, the article jolts strangely as the tone shifts, make sure you remove these instances.
|
| Cscore
| |
| Mscore
| |
| Hcomment
| - OK, I see what you are trying to do with the humour in this article, but you are struggling in several respects. The first and most notable obstacle to your humour is the coherence of the article. Your train of thought is very difficult to follow as you race from point to point, the best thing to do here would be to abandon the chronological style and use the section names to greater effect. Look through your article, look at the sections and imagine you had no prior grasp of the subject matter and see how easy it is for you to grasp. You should also look at your jokes and consider being a bit less overt with your punchlines. Currently the article adopts an 'in-your-face' style which feels unnecessary in a lot of places. Consider the joke about liberalism being the route to communism, if you didn't explicitly state this then you could make the joke much better. You definitely have the ability to make this much better, and the best advice I can offer you is to make use of HTBFANJS and not to be afraid of asking more experienced editors for help.
|
| Iscore
| |
| Hscore
| |
| Fcomment
| - This isn't as bad as the score may imply, don't be discouraged by the negative points in the review. If you have the motivation then you can make this article brilliant. Try to take my points to heart, but ultimately it is your decision whether or not to work on this. I'm on hand to help at any time if you need me. Feel free to query review points, offer suggestions, ask for help or guidance and anything else on my talk page. Good luck editing.
|
| dbkwik:uncyclopedi...iPageUsesTemplate
| |
| Signature
| |
| abstract
| - Legolas11 11:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC) The point of Pee Review is... 13:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Are you pointing out that the article submitted was not written by the person who entered them for review Guildy? --ChiefjusticeDS 20:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Oh I see.... my bad. --ChiefjusticeDS 20:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC) I'm here. --ChiefjusticeDS 18:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)