The first review of this was several months ago, and SysRq basically told me to go to VFH with it; it subsequently got hammered stagnant. This time, I'm pretty much looking for ways to improve it, get it over the hump so to speal. I'll have a look at this one, for now enjoy Noel. 15:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC) How did this get hammered on VFH? -- I consider anything that hits -3 hammered, personally. OK, that was my memory talking. I thought it hit -3, not +3. Sorry 'bout that.
| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdfs:label
| - Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/H.T.C.P.C.P. II
|
| rdfs:comment
| - The first review of this was several months ago, and SysRq basically told me to go to VFH with it; it subsequently got hammered stagnant. This time, I'm pretty much looking for ways to improve it, get it over the hump so to speal. I'll have a look at this one, for now enjoy Noel. 15:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC) How did this get hammered on VFH? -- I consider anything that hits -3 hammered, personally. OK, that was my memory talking. I thought it hit -3, not +3. Sorry 'bout that.
|
| dcterms:subject
| |
| Mcomment
| - Very impressive article, no major complaints or issues, I'd probably vote for if it was on VFH again.
|
| Pcomment
| - A few errors in there, and sometimes not as quick off the mark as it could be, I always find with anything I write, that 50% is writing, 50% is dusting off. I'll mention quoting and referencing again here, as I think that this would dramatically improve the article a study, journal, or Government/company press report would really make your article seem "more real" in a sense and this will draw readers in. Again, there’s a lack of a human face to connect with readers, there’s some of this in the beginning but remains absent throughout. I always aim to have charters, particularly in an encyclopedic article. Image captions are very funny
|
| Icomment
| - Very Good, I kind of felt that although relevant that the repetition was not so cool here, as the images did not really set the scene, I would maybe consider changing one of them for a broader perspective. Nothing major though, and it’s a minor gripe. Captions were funny and all are well placed
|
| Pscore
| |
| Ccomment
| - Very good, nobody else would think to do this, and that’s really the aim. I think that it’s funny and a very good article. I think that in terms of "standard" it's a really top quality article. A concern that maybe you'll think your articles just aren’t VFH quality is something I'd do away with, VFH is not really the best way to gauge article quality - I think this should be VFH if that makes any sense at all. Nothing to complain about, a nicely original article with good style and tone.
|
| Cscore
| |
| Mscore
| |
| Hcomment
| |
| Iscore
| |
| Hscore
| |
| Fcomment
| - I hope this was helpful, should there be any questions or queries, don't hesitate to leave note:)
|
| dbkwik:uncyclopedi...iPageUsesTemplate
| |
| Signature
| |
| abstract
| - The first review of this was several months ago, and SysRq basically told me to go to VFH with it; it subsequently got hammered stagnant. This time, I'm pretty much looking for ways to improve it, get it over the hump so to speal. I'll have a look at this one, for now enjoy Noel. 15:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC) How did this get hammered on VFH? -- I consider anything that hits -3 hammered, personally. OK, that was my memory talking. I thought it hit -3, not +3. Sorry 'bout that.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)