Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Guidelines

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.

Main Current Reviewed Archived Guidelines FAQ Committee ROTM

Contents 1 Submitting to Pee Review 1.1 After it's Submitted 1.2 After it's Reviewed 2 Doing a Review 2.1 The Basics 2.1.1 Before You Start 2.1.2 BE NICE, ASSHOLE 2.1.3 Focus on the Content of the Article 2.1.4 Give Direction for New Writers 2.1.5 No Lists 2.1.6 Limit the Randomness 2.1.7 The Categories 2.1.8 Scoring 2.2 Intermediate Reviewing 2.2.1 Be Specific 2.2.2 Grammar and Spelling 2.2.3 Give Alternatives/Ideas 2.2.4 Discourage In-Jokes 2.2.5 Formatting 2.2.6 Pictures 2.3 Advanced Reviewing 2.3.1 Concept 2.3.2 Tone 2.3.3 Person 2.3.4 Subtleties 2.4 An Example Pee 3 Conclusion

Pee Review is a mechanism for requesting and offering help on articles written in the Uncyc community. Like everything else done within our wonderful world, users of Pee Review are subject to our rules of conduct. If you haven't read these, please do.

Although insulting an individual is not permitted, constructive criticism of an article is very much encouraged. If you consider an article to be poor, it's fine to say this as long as you explain why. Keep in mind however that although you may not intend to insult the author, much can be lost in translation over the internet.

Generally, Pee Reviews should undertaken by users with some experience of writing articles, or at least by people who have read a number of our better articles to get an idea of what good is. A explanation of what makes a good article can be found here.

To look at recently done reviews click the Reviewed button on the menu.

[edit] Submitting to Pee Review

Anything can be submitted to pee review. It is generally not considered a good idea to submit an article which is also on the Uncyclopedia Votes for Highlight page as it assumed that these articles will get the attention they deserve there.

Although anything can be submitted to Pee Review, you're much more likely to get a useful review if you have put some effort into it first. Pee Review is not for getting someone to work on an article which you can't be bothered to finish. If you do submit a half finished article, don't be surprised if the reviewer does not give it their full attention.

When you do submit your work, it's a good idea to give the reviewer a brief outline of the articles history and let them know what you hope to get out of the process. With this in mind they will be able to focus their efforts on the areas which you consider important.

[edit] After it's Submitted

When you have submitted your article it's just a matter of waiting for someone to come along and review it. If you want to get a good review, the best way is to do some reviews yourself. If you submit an article, but never do any reviews yourself, don't be surprised if no one bothers to reviews yours. You have to suck as well as blow.

[edit] After it's Reviewed

Take the criticism seriously. Some people give better reviews than others, but anyone who who has followed these guidelines is trying to help. If you get a particularly useless review you may revert it and contact the reviewer on their talk page encouraging them to read these guidelines giving an explanation explaining why the review was not useful. Please note that some reviewers may consider it an insult if you revert their efforts.

If you later wish to resubmit your article for another review it's usually best to create a New Entry with "(Resubmit)" after the tittle.

When someone has done a good review it's considered polite to thank them on their talk page, and some users may be willing to give further feedback. If you get a particularly exceptional Pee Review you can thank the reviewer by giving them the {{Golden Shower Award}}.

It is convention to copy your Pee Review onto the talk page of the article in question. Old Pee Reviews may be deleted after time, and it's far easier to find them if they are on the talk page. This applies especially if you self nominate on VFH which requires a Pee Review beforehand.

[edit] Doing a Review

Just like writing articles, people have different styles of reviewing and there is no 'right or wrong' way. If you put some effort in, and give useful advice you contribution will be very welcome.

Writing a genuinely helpfully Pee Review is not an easy task. Just like writing good articles, doing a good Pee Review takes time and effort. No one will to be grateful if you just give a score for each category but do not explain why you gave it.

[edit] The Basics

To give a basic review, attempt to follow the guidelines in this section.

[edit] Before You Start

One of the newer innovations in the ever evolving sport of Pee Reviews is the {{PRIP}} template. This template is placed along with your username on a Pee Review page you intend on reviewing before you start. This is to prevent edit conflicts, which have become more and more common as Pee Reviews gain popularity. Here's what the template looks like:

__NOCAJEK__'d! Pee Review In Progress Wha-oh, you-know-who better back off. Example is already peeing on this article.

Simply replace the "Example" portion with your FULL username. (for example, don't just put STM, TYPE OUT Savethemooses) Save page, and bam! Your review has been marked. Then go back to edit page and review the article. Don't forget to remove this template when you're done, you don't need it after you've finished.

[edit] BE NICE, ASSHOLE

see Uncyclopedia:Communication

see Uncyclopedia:Civility

Obviously follow the rules of conduct, but also try to be supportive. Writing articles can be very difficult, and no one is funny all the time. It's fine to tell someone that their article is poor, but try not to beat them into the ground too much when you do.

If you feel that someone is misusing Pee Review in some way, or that the article should not have been submitted, give a brief review and contact them via their talk page explaining your reservations.

[edit] Focus on the Content of the Article

Writing tutors recommend that content should be considered before grammar and spelling errors. Focusing simply on spellling; and,gramar can be very disheartening for the author due to the insinuation that the article's content is less important than the grammar mistakes. If you focus on content the author will have a better idea not only of what to do, but where they should focus their energies.

Is the "overall concept" a good one? Don't be afraid to say so if you think the user is wasting their time because the idea behind the article is fundamentally flawed. If you do however, try to explain why you believe this to be the case.

The object of pee review is to review the article. However, more often than not, pee reviews discuss the particular merits of the author as opposed to focusing on the particular merits of the article. For example:

• "You need [help]..."
• "Wow, I'm surprised that you, in all your noobiness, could have pulled this off..."
• "You [suck] in the following areas..."

Combined together like this, they sound more like an author appraisal than anything else. Essentially, try to avoid using "you" in a review. Without "you", the reviewer will resort to focusing on the article. Also, without "you", I'll be a lonely man indeed. So, stay won't you?

[edit] Give Direction for New Writers

see Uncyclopedia:Best of

see HTBFANJS

For new Uncyclopedia writers, it can be a very daunting task to write a "funny" article. In fact, it can be a daunting task for the ancient ones as well. That's why, when an article is done by someone new, it's best to point them in the direction of all the featured articles on Uncyc, or How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid. Later on, we will discuss the two most important aspects of HTBF, but new writers will need to be directed to good articles and advice. (Suggestion: Remember that HTBF's name is inherently insulting. Use it wisely)

[edit] No Lists

see UN:LIST

If there are lists in the article, recommend that the author remove them unless they genuinely contribute to the work. This includes quotespam, which is essentially a list in itself.

[edit] Limit the Randomness

see UN:DUMB

As described UN:DUMB, some randomness can add to the amusement of an article. Here's the basic rule regarding randomness: If you think that it is not warranted by the title of the article or that it is not introduced to the reader carefully enough let them know.

Be as specific as possible. "An island somewhere in the sea" may be all the info Shakespeare gave, but "A tropical atoll 150 kilometers southwest of Antigua" makes it sound like a real island. "king of some part of Italy" could be "King of the principality of Lasagna, a foul swampy little kingdom on the Italian mainland near Venice." The crucial thing to remember is that specific descriptions tend to stimulate interesting images in the readers mind; generalities don't.

[edit] The Categories

The Pee Review form is divided into six sections which allow you give a score from zero to ten, as well as a comment explaining why you have given that score.

Humo(u)r:	7	Probably the most important. How funny is it? Why is it funny? How can it be funnier?
Concept:	9	How good an idea is behind the article? Is it original with lots of potential? Could the concept be expanded and in what way?
Prose and Formatting:	8	The writing style, spelling, grammar, layout and overall appearance. Is it written in an encyclopedic style? If not, are there good reasons for this?
Images:	5	How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting? If the writer has no photochopping skills, encourage the use of captions to make normal images funny.
Miscellaneous:	7.3	Anything that doesn't fit in with the other categories, or use Avg. to workout an average for you ({{pee|7|9|8|5}} in this case).
Final Score:	36.3	Overall summation. How much can it be improved and what are the most important areas to work on.
Reviewer:	Please sign using the normal ~~~~

Your score for each category should be considered independently of the others. If the article is riddled with spelling mistakes and terrible pictures, but still made you wet you pants laughing, it still gets a 10 for humour. Likewise if it's a brilliant idea, but has not been well exploited you should give a high score for concept. It is absolutely necessary to add comments based on your score, to tell the author why you scored it that way, as well as to give the author advice to improve the article.

Generally, it will be necessary to write at least a paragraph or two in each box to get your message across. You may (of course) write as much as you wish, but it is unlikely that a very short sentence will be particularly helpful to the user. More advice is always better.

[edit] Scoring

Generally it is recommended that you use the following scoring system:

• [10]==Brilliant. No mistakes. (50 holy crap, I wet my pants!).
• [9]===Way above average: probably VFH (45)
• [8]===More than adequate: might be VFH (40)
• [7]===Adequate, the average article (35)
• [6]===Nearly adequate (30)
• [5]===Inadequate. Might be Rewrite. (25)
• [4]===Might be VFD/NRV/Rewrite (20)
• [3]===Probably VFD/NRV (15)
• [2]===Probably VFD/QVFD (10)
• [1]===Probably QVFD (5)
• [0]===Doesn't exist, no attempt. Reserved for the Iscore of articles without pictures ONLY.

It is obviously very difficult to judge what 'adequate' is as what one reviewer may consider average will be different than another. When starting to review for the first time consider taking a look at some reviews which have been already been done and try to find what appears to be a consensus between them. Over time, as you become more experienced you will become better at giving scores. When in doubt, give an average score.

Remember that what is written in the comments section is far more useful than the actual scores you give, but be aware that most users take the score seriously simply because they are the most objective part of the review.

[edit] Intermediate Reviewing

Once you have the basics it's time to consider some more subtle issues.

[edit] Be Specific

Try to give examples of what exactly it is that's troubling you, whether it be content, grammar or whatever.

[edit] Grammar and Spelling

If you see glaring errors in grammar and spelling, try to not be too critical of them. Writing is difficult and requires practice. Give a rough outline of the problems. If you can't find a pattern in their mistakes, tell them to read the article out loud to themselves. Usually, that's enough to catch many errors. You can always fix some of the errors yourself if you wish to, or add the {{proofread}} template to get someone else to do it. For more specifics, see the section "subtleties".

[edit] Give Alternatives/Ideas

Instead of just saying that something is wrong, it's much better to give useful alternatives or suggestions which could make things better. Two heads are better than one, and the author may be looking for some fresh ideas.

1. History: Did they explain the history of the thing they're talking about?
2. People: Did they talk about important people involved?
3. Applications: Did they talk about how the article relates/doesn't relate to the reader's life?
4. Usage: How is it used?
5. What if?: What if the average person tried doing this?
6. Why?: Why does the average person care about this?

[edit] Discourage In-Jokes

See Category:Uncyclopedia In-Jokes

Uncyclopedia has many in-jokes that are often intolerable in many articles. You should know them, and discourage their use. The most common ones are quotes from Oscar Wilde, Russian Reversal, and Chuck Norris, as well as references to Kitten Huffing. If you see one of these jokes, make sure that it is suitable in the context. For example, Oscar Wilde was a brilliant, insightful man, so if someone is using a Wilde quote, make sure that it's something which he might actually have said.

[edit] Formatting

Is the article 'ugly'? If so, in what way is it ugly? Does it have large blocks of unbroken text or eleven paragraphs in a row that are one sentence long? It may have too many pictures, or too few pictures, or very few links to other articles.

It might be evident that the author of the article was not aware of some basic formatting skills which make articles look nice. If you think this is the case, consider formatting a small section of the article to show them how to do it.

How many sentences in the article are between 10 and 20 words long and consist of two or more clauses separated by a comma? How many are less than 5 words long? If most sentences in a piece have the same general length and structure, then the piece often feels dull. Very short sentences can be a delightful seasoning in prose, and short sentences are often strong. They have impact.

[edit] Pictures

If you feel that the number of pictures is fine, comment on the pictures themselves. Very rarely are pictures themselves the problem unless they don't match the article itself, or are there for no reason. Occasionally, you may see completely unacceptable pictures, but this is very rare... damn noobs don't know how to upload images! Except in special circumstances, there should not be a picturespam gallery (<gallery>). Make sure that most pictures are thumbs of an appropriate size, with a humorous caption.

[edit] Advanced Reviewing

When you have considered the above you might increase the usefulness of your review by commenting on the following.

[edit] Concept

This is the hardest part of Pee Review to score. Here are a few tips:

1. Many different unrelated ideas jumbled into one article is generally not a good thing. It's best if there is one core idea behind it.
2. Don't score on how funny it could possibly be. The fact that Jerry Seinfeld could make it brilliant is not important. Jerry's not here, and if you have to give a "potential" score for that article, make sure it's for that writer based on the rest of the article.
3. Are you jealous of the idea? If so give concept a high score.

[edit] Tone

Is the article written in a tone of voice appropriate to the context? Is it too angry, too passive or too boring for the concept? If so, let them know.

What style is the article written in, and has the author made it work?

1. Sarcasm: A sarcastic person over the interweb is difficult to distinguish from a complete idiot. For sarcasm to work it usually has to be way over the top, unless it's obvious.
2. Deadpan: Ever seen Superbad or Arrested Development? That's what deadpan humor "is". For it to work over the internet, it has to be somewhat out of the norm because the internet doesn't carry facial expressions or the tone of voice (yet).
3. Parody: Parody is very difficult to pull off. The reader has to know the actual subject matter, then notice that it's parody as well as find it funny. Is it likely that most readers will be able to do this with the article in question?

[edit] Person

Does the article switch from first to second person without explanation? Is it disconcerting for some reason? At this point, bring to bear the article's direction. Who is it talking to or about? Is it breaking the fourth wall too much, or unexpectedly? This part of reviewing takes a lot of stamina.

[edit] Subtleties

If a joke falls flat not because of it's poor grammar and not because the joke isn't inherently funny, then something else way more complicated is going on. Usually, these type of errors are found in specific sentences, so they're easier to fix than tone and person. Look for these problems:

1. Punctuation Matters: If a comma is in the wrong place, or if there are too many, the flow of the joke can be messed up. Commas should be used to separate 3 or more items, not 2.
2. Emphasis (Italicization/Bolds): Emphasis should be used sparingly, but it should probably be used once in most articles. If a joke has an exclamation point at the end, the joke is usually ruined (unless it's absolutely hilarious). Same with italicize and bold.
3. Starting a sentence with descriptive clauses prior to introducing the subject is usually not appropriate. "Hasbro, the childrens' toy company" is better than "the childrens' toy company, Hasbro".
4. Blocks of text are not wanted. Make sure that there are appropriate breaks for the reader, and that each paragraph focuses on a single general topic.

[edit] An Example Pee

Below shows a well done pee. Note that the reviewer has given genuinely useful advice as well as pointing out problems.

Humo(u)r:	7	Pretty funny, but I think it could be even better, if you work on it. I highly recommend HTBFANJS, I read it every time I write something, and it really is great for ideas and tricks to get a quick laugh. Also, make sure that whatever you intend to be funny is very clear. For example, in this line: "wearing nothing but a shirt, tie, shoes, socks, underpants and a three-piece suit", I think you're trying to insinuate that Darwin was wearing no pants, right? If so, make sure that it's very clear; the sentence you have there is somewhat confusing. Other than that, really think about what you want to be funny. Make sure that everything you write has some intent, and try to know why something you write is funny, so that you can be sure that it is.
Concept:	8	I find myself enjoying this concept very much. It has a lot of potential for satirical humor, but I think you could exploit this a little better. Personally, I'd like to hear more about how Darwin is "the second-coming of the atheist messiah". It just felt to me like you got off a track a little bit. Try to really have an idea of a direction you want a page to go in, otherwise you run a risk of becoming a little bit irrelevant.
Prose and Formatting:	6.5	Mostly ok prose, but could be better in a few places. For example, look at this sentence: "Akin to claims of arrests being made to question people." That's a fragment, and I'm unsure as to what you mean by it. Remember that writing comedy has to be spot on--if you've ever told a joke or watched a stand-up comic, you know that comedic timing and delivery are everything. Writing humor is exactly the same, but harder, so don't be afraid to use plenty of commas, boldness, and italics to get your delivery to the point where it can only be uninterpreted one way--the way that you want it to be interpreted. Formatting is good, although you may want to italicize your "quotes".
Images:	7	Your images, though relevant, could be much funnier. Don't be afraid to use the captions to insert a joke, they're great for one-liners.
Miscellaneous:	7.1	Avg'd your score, via {{Pee}}: {{Pee|7|8|6.5|7}}
Final Score:	35.6	Basically, the page is solid and stands on its own, but with a little more tuning up, a little pruning (don't be afraid to delete stuff from your own page), it could become a prime Uncyclopedia UnNews. Just read through it slowly, with a critical eye, and try to fix everything. Good luck.
Reviewer:	- SomeGuyWithNoLedInHisPencil 01:01, April 1

[edit] Conclusion

It is (of course) up to you to decide how to go about doing your Pee Reviews and all of the above should be considered guidelines. So long as your intentions are good and you put a reasonable amount of effort into the process the submitter will be grateful. Users will probably find your reviews the most useful when you offer alternative suggestions for how things might be done rather than just highlighting mistakes.

Thank you for reading this guide. Now what the hell are you still doing here? Go and review something you lazy bugger!