Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Chanupocalypse

Humour: 6 Now this is quite an interesting article. Although it does have a few things that need to be worked on, this article has potential. Shall I begin? I’ll take it as a yes.

The Good Parts

I’ve see you’ve done your research and used it well, which tells me you followed the "Truth is funnier than nonsense" statement from the HTBFANJS. And then you add your own little facts that even though they are untrue, the amount of truthfulness in your article makes the untrue work. I’m very proud of you.

I’ll give you praise for the way you made fun of Jews without outright bashing them, something I am strong against. Instead of saying something like, "Jews are evil and are the spawn of Satan," you were more like "Jews are preparing for the End Times and are very crafty. Well, not really, but you get what I mean.

I do like how the narrator starts to look like he’s crazy around midway and how the listener is reacting to him. I think that will work out just fine.

The Bad Parts

When I got to sections such as" Hollywood" and"Why Paul Newman and Goldie Hawn?", I was both interested as well as disappointed with what I’ve read. You went from explaining about a conspiracy run by the Jews to pointing out that a few celebrities were Jews and were part of their plans. Some of it was ok, but having celebrities as leaders doesn’t sound professional to me. To me, it’s another way to bash celebrities. I think it can be pulled off, but don’t let the leaders of the Jewish Cabal be celebrities. Now if they were political leaders, it would work out. But letting Hollywood be a bastion of the evil Jews is a good idea in my opinion.

A link to Barack Obama, in my opinion, is stupid because I know for a fact he’s not Jewish (or even a born American citizen) and may be Muslim (who hate Jews). Having links to Barack Obama is funny, but this is not one of them.

Most of the article’s sections have like 2 or 3 sentences, or even just one word. Doing that makes the article look messy. Having one or two sections with1 or 2 or more sentences are ok (especially if they are conclusion sections) but try to refrain from doing that.

Concept: 7 It has quite an interesting concept and I really like it. However, it appears like you’re trying to do a questionnaire and a first person article at the same time, which I don’t think works too well. You should pick one or the other. The questionnaire tone would be good as you can have sections explaining a certain topic on the subject and have one person ask a question and have another person answer. Or, you could have a tone like this article has. Read and you’ll see what I mean.

Prose and formatting: 7 I see a few spelling and grammar errors, but it’s not much of a big deal. Just have it proofread or use spell check on MS Word and It’ll be fine in no time.

Images: 6 All are good except for the Tom Cruise image and the Rob Schneider. They don’t contribute to the article and should probably go. The only other problems I have with the images are as followed: 1.) Try to space them out some because some of them are two close to each other, making the article look very messy, 2.) They are on the small side, so it would be best to expand them, and 3.) You need to work on the captions because they are really dull and don’t make the images funnier. Other than that you’re pretty much good on images.

Miscellaneous: 6.5 My average score of this article.

Final Score: 32.5 Sorry for taking this long to finish this review, had so much to do during the holidays. But at least I got it done. Anyways, this article does show promise; it just needs a little tweaking. Also, it's usually a good thing to get someone else's opinion if you're unsure or don't like this review. If you have any questions or comments, I’ll be more than happy to reply to them on my talk page. Good Luck! Cheers!

Reviewer: --If you're 555 then I'm Number of the Beast.jpg Talk What's it like to be a heretic? 03:07, January 3, 2011 (UTC)