Uncyclopedia talk:Pee Review
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Great idea! --Paulgb Talk 23:23, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
[edit] new format, reforms
to purge away some of the old stuff and 2 make the pee review more useable i propose that all articles are removed after a month with their comments moved into the discussion of said article. Personally it think all commenting should go on in the said articles discussion page. maybe link could be created like that seen on the VFP --Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN3 NotM BLK |_LG8+::: 10:53, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
- Make it two months. I don't find it unmanageable at present - David Gerard 00:20, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article needs help!
Hey,
I'm working on an article on the Ivy League, seeing it needed to be rewritten and what I saw up there was a pretty sad stab at humor (it missed, btw). So I cleaned out the old crap, put in some new stuff, some which I'm pretty proud of and some of it is stuff which I might've found amusing if I were drunk, And on crack, because I was at the time of writing it.
I've got mostly jokes on Brown and Harvard, but what this article needs is a longer history (a section on each school in the league preferably) and more jokes about Yale.
OK, that's about it - user:ninja88penguin
[edit] Who is responsible?
Is it permissible for me to request a Pee Review on articles I didn't create (see Caltech and In The Groove)?
Should the Pee Review front page be amended to specifically allow (or prohibit) this? Pentium5dot1 01:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, go ahead. Thanks for pointing it out - I've revised the PR main page text to clarify. —rc (t) 02:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think it isn't clear enough; with several of the articles I later requested pee reviews on, there were mild accusations falsely directed at me for the poor quality of the articles. Apparently some users weren't aware that they should have checked the page histories to determine that I hadn't actually created the articles in question. Also, I am thinking about pee-reviewing In The Groove a second time. Is that allowed, and how do we write that into the policy? Pentium5dot1 09:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] how does it work
--Jamesryanjcrjcr 07:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Some questions...
Where can we find articles that have seen review, for an example? Also, how do we make it clear who has done the review? So far, it seems like only one person could ever review an article, and that would be that forever. Am I getting something wrong? —Lenoxus 22:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- You can see all the reviews (requests and finished) by going to "Current" on the nav bar at the top of the main page. If you would like to review something that someone else has already done, you can go here to find a table (if you want to do it that way). If you would like to leave a general comment - go ahead; writers like as many pointers as they can. —Braydie 22:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I fucked it up
shit sorry guys, i fucked up the pee review page some how. I'm not so slick with the edits yet so please forgive me.--Benny Goodman 05:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, so I reverted my edit, sorry folks for that momentary folly.--Benny Goodman 05:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] From Pee Review
| Humo(u)r: | 10 | I nearly wet myself, that was so funny! "Pee" review instead of "Peer" review, that's gold. |
| Concept: | 10 | Brilliant, this will undoubtedly improve Uncyclopedia in ways we cannot even begin to comprehend. |
| Prose and Formatting: | 10 | Fantastic, I love the fancy table used for giving scores. |
| Images: | 10 | What's that guy on the crapper there, the Thinker? Excellent and slightly disgusting. |
| Miscellaneous: | 10 | Is this even a reviewable page? |
| Final Score: | 50 | VFH immediately. |
| Reviewer: | The Acceptable  Cainad  (Fnord) 20:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
| |
the dudes who wrote these pages are now declared AWESOME, by I Athiane Campos, Ninja Pirate.
| Rejoice, Pee Review! You have been entitled to the Golden Shower Award | 
|
| For donating high quality material to the Pee Review. |
[edit] Glitch
It appears that if someone edits a pee review page at all, it suddenly gets listed as a new review request. Any way to fix that? Rogpyvbc 05:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I'd Like To Turn Myself In
My two pages, Planet A and Chimera are in serious need of reveiwing... since I don't want to disturb the peice and fidelity of the main page I'll just do it on this 'ere talk page. Anyone who wants to reveiw these two lesbian sisters would be greatly appreciated.
Note: Chimera is by far the better of the two. Planet A should be huffed immediatly. Please.
|
| Too bad, Pee Review! You have been robbed of your GOLDEN SHOWER AWARD |
|
| Maybe Oscar Wilde stole it...? |
[edit] Old Articles
I think we should start reviewing the old articles before the new ones. I've been doing some, but there's a lot of them.
--Scout JoshHJ's Page and His Talk 18:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Great Job Everyone!
Well I think we all should celebrate us being less than a month behind on the articles. /me passes around the cake. --Scout JoshHJ's Page and His Talk 01:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] no noobz plz, okay im a noob
i dont think non-admins should be allowed to review, mainly because they are not experienced enough. and it gives the articles creator false hope. I posted an article once, and one reviewer gave it all 9s and one 8, the other gave it 6's, just saying. or at least recognize the difference between admins and non-admins. maybe some ranking system or sumthing --Train Tracker 01:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Whoa! I guess you've meant VETERANS, not ADMINS, or else you would make those lazy fellas really exulting with such additional HUGE task. Actually, we're having overtly optimistic reviews lately, but I guess this has nothing to do with the experience of the reviewer. It's just that newbies are more condescending to what vets know to be uncyc clichés. -- herr doktor needsAbrain
[scream!] 01:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What happened?
Suddenly we have only four articles needing review. Did everyone decide to go on a reviewing binge all at once? I looked at some of the recent reviews and, well, they tended to be extremely short with virtually no comments. So we may have reduced the wait list, but it seems at a sacrifice of the whole purpose of the review - to provide constructive feedback. Sir Roger 03:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was looking through the reviews and most of them have one sentence for each area... It isn't good. --Scout JoshHJ's Page and His Talk 02:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Does one have to...
...be the creator an article to submit said article for review? --* 03:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Decimals?
See Talk:Anime#From Pee Review.. Is this use of decimals generally allowed? Pentium5dot1 04:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External links?
Would be nice to add this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSeOBU3QApc
[edit] Take it seriously
NXWave has just reviewed almost 40 articles in a little over 2 hours, giving most of them scores like 1 out of 10 in each category with a few words as comments. We'd be better to not have a Pee Review than have this done. I would think these reviews should not make it to the talk pages of the articles, and that many of the authors will simply put theirs back on request for review again. Sir Roger 19:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Flammable's Office, anyone? --Grand General Wizard Etc x2 and Senator G/K/O/CUNT.K.F. WHORE! ZOTM MAFE VANDL UOTM WOTM TOP10 FP 19:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Review request
My Puppy Huffing article has been on the list for three days, and now is'nt on the main pee review page. It's still near the top of the "Current" list, but I need it reviewed before it descends into oblivion. I'm trying to get it featured, which requires an article to be reviewed once or spend a full week in pee review. I'd much rather have it reviewed and get some advice and edit the article accordingly than have it spend an unproductive week gathering dust and being just as mediocre as before. So anyone with spare time, please, take pitty on this lost, fluffy article. It contains puppies! DarkBlue 19:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- UPDATE: An answer would help, guys. DarkBlue 20:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Everyone is in the same boat. You can nom for feature without feedback (the feedback you get on Pee Review isn't always worth waiting for), or wait for the review and try to get your article featured later. Sir Roger 23:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Backlog
Clearly we have a problem - far more people want their stuff reviewed than are willing to put in a few minutes to review someone else's stuff. We always end up with a huge backlog, until someone decides to give 20 or 30 articles one-line reviews just to reduce the waitlist. I suggest we require anyone who wants a review to do a review first. Some people will do worthless reviews just to get it done with, but it would probably be better than the current situation. As someone who has reviewed almost 30 articles and has asked for about 4 of mine to be reviewed, I don't appreciate waiting or the quick backlog-reduction. Sir Roger 23:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, this actually sounds like a great solution to the "my article never gets reviewed" problem. I'd have to start reviewing more though...--R. Daneel Olivaw (Gaia - Foundation) 21:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Question about PEE review
The article I'm making at the moment is in construction but I've done quite a bit, so I was wondering if it is OK for me to put what I have done so far up for Pee review. --El legend 21:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is, although you'd usually get a better review if you completed it first. --Sir Starnestommy
(Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 21:14, September 14, 2007
[edit] Evil one275
Evil one275 probably requires an administrator's attention - has has given several reviews that weren't constructive. While they were in good faith, as they said, they weren't helpful, and he should get a message on his talk page saying to cease further reviews until his judgement improves.--Sir Manforman 
01:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I just peed my pants. --Rick Davies Supertramp 20:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
