I don't really envy whoever has to review this ridiculous thing, but I'd like to hear a little feedback on it. 18:16, January 31, 2011 (UTC) I got this-- 22:52, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdfs:label
| - Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Jim Freklowski
|
| rdfs:comment
| - I don't really envy whoever has to review this ridiculous thing, but I'd like to hear a little feedback on it. 18:16, January 31, 2011 (UTC) I got this-- 22:52, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
|
| dcterms:subject
| |
| Mcomment
| - My average score of this article
|
| Pcomment
| - Spelling and grammar is ok, yet the paragraghs have large spaces between them, making the article messy. Although it's the Wikipedia boxes that cause this, so either put more info or remove the boxes The pics should be seperated from each other. Like have some on the right, and some on the left.
|
| Icomment
| - The only one I liked is the first one. While it shows little humor, it does at least shows a picture of the character. As for the rest, they just don't contribute to the article, so delete all of them. Instead, have pics of the tragedies themselves and perhaps have someone photochop a image to show that jim was in that tragedy
|
| Pscore
| |
| Ccomment
| - It has some potential, yet the way it was executed makes this grade go down. And the tone tends to shift from first person to third person, something that is not recommended. You need to pick a tone and stick with it through the entire article.
|
| Cscore
| |
| Hcomment
| - This was quite difficult, but I did the best I could. After reading this I felt that this either portrays a actual person with random thing put in it, or portrays a completely fictional character, as I couldn't find anything on him on google.
The article suffers from many problems. I will go through each one indepthly. First, the article is filled with much randomness. While randomness can be funny if used properly, this is not the case. The way it is executed appears very unprofessional.
Secondly, each section is short and followed by a list. Lists are overused already, and nowadays only a very few are actually funny. And most thinbgs in the list have nothing to do with the subject at all. My best suggestion is to remove all the lists; they don't contribute to the article at all. As for the paragraghs, they should have more details about the tragedy that the section is talking about, and how Jim goes through the incident and how he reacts after words.
Thirdly, things are put in a time that they didn't exist in . It's always important to remember that, "The truth is usually funnier than nonsense. The funniest pages are those closest to the truth," even in articles that are random. So stick with objects that existed during that time and only used things that didn't exist druing that time for links.
Fourthly, I think instead of having him have a wonderful imagination, he should be an optimist and state that "the sun will come out, tomarrow" or something like that. This is up to you, yet it's a good idea.
|
| Iscore
| |
| Hscore
| |
| Fcomment
| - While it's not the best article I've seen, it's not a lost cause. With a little love, and following my advice, I believe this article will be good as new. Good Luck! Cheers!>
|
| dbkwik:uncyclopedi...iPageUsesTemplate
| |
| Signature
| |
| abstract
| - I don't really envy whoever has to review this ridiculous thing, but I'd like to hear a little feedback on it. 18:16, January 31, 2011 (UTC) I got this-- 22:52, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)