Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/My friend Joey

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archived

Guidelines

FAQ

Pee Week

Committee

RotM

My friend Joey

84.250.123.208 00:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the lousy review. Reverted. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:51, Mar 17

...and again... - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:32, Mar 17

Humour:	4	'Twas "meh", in my opine. There are a couple of really flashy bits that caught my attention, but the article is generally mediocre-to-average (no, those aren't the same thing; I would put this closer to average). The start is better than the finish, generally because I was pissing myself laughing at the concept more than the article, but the top blurb does at least tie in with this. For some improvements, try to add a couple more sections to expand the structure; and don't be as random, as randomness tends not to be as funny. Try to keep a "backbone of humour", if you will, in your article.
Concept:	9	I really like the concept. We've not exploited that area of satirising the people who brainlessly create vanity articles enough really, and this really has potential to be great. What it needs is expansion. Some background on Joey's early years would be appropriate for a heading, as would some more information on the court case.
Prose and formatting:	5	The typing is generally OK, with half-decent spelling and grammar - though I would refrain from using text language such as BTW - use "by the way" instead. There are slightly too many links there, but that's OK really. The formatting is OK not great, but the lack of images pulls it down somewhat.
Images:	0	There aren't any images, so this gets an automatic 0. Shame, really, since it brings the overall score of the article down 7-9 points. If you need any help with pictures, try RadX's Corner. Personally, I would like to see an image of Joey there, with a funny caption explaining him, as well as possibly a picture regarding the band stuff. It shouldn't take too much to get good images for this.
Miscellaneous:	4.5	n/a
Final Score:	22.5	This is very close to being good enough to take off ICU already, IMO. Expand it a bit, add some images, and polish it down and it could become a good article.
Reviewer:	–—Hv (talk) 17/03 19:16

I too would like to apologise for the lousy review last night; i was too tierd and didn't pick up on the fact that you were parodying the concept of vanity articles... I'm kinda... slow? you should sign up to uncyc though, IP addresses are ugly!--orian57 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob - neither did an admin (pick up on the fact that I'm parodying the concept of vanity articles), so the page got at first deleted about 5 minutes after I created it, and also, a third person suggested that I should try to make it more "obvious" what I'm really satirizing. I'm just trying stupid things here to see how well they work, and I think my main problem is that I don't really have a real source for the article. I think I need to research some notable cases of real vanity articles to get closer to my subject. I purposefully tried to make the prose half-decent to make it look like a half-brain actually wrote it, but I guess I need to find another way (such as the deliberate mispelling of words instead of bad grammar). Anyway, thanks!

If it's examples you need, they're really not hard to find--I have to huff dozens of them every day. We try to delete them quickly, of course, but you'll see 'em pop by on QVFD, or Special:Newpages, the source. Usually they're just one or two lines about how so and so is either awesome and the king of the universe(the author writing about themself), or about how so and so is a gay jerk that everyone hates. It's a shame, really, as I'd like to find a vanity page about how someone is "ok, I guess." - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:05, Mar 17