Talk:The 28th Amendment

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Bloink1 solid.png
This article was nominated for deletion on March 13, 2015.
The result of the discussion was Kept.

From Pee Review[edit]

Ran out of ideas. Anything funny I can add? Can someone piss or jizz on my Peter North article please. If not, just make a pretensious denial face and say, "i don't know who peter north is!" --AmericanBastard 04:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Humour: 6 Could use a little fleshing out, but there's some good jokes in there- the only problem is that most of the humour can be guessed from the title. Try extending it a bit to include somethign more unexpected.
Concept: 8 Really liked the idea, a nice bit of satire
Prose and formatting: 6 Could use a little tidying up, especially with regard to comma usage, but well paragraphed etc. (by the way, the word "delegating" in the first paragraph- do you possibly mean "dictating"?) Minor problems with grammar at a couple of points, but a quick proof-reading should get rid of those
Images: 8 Good, I liked to post-it note one.
Miscellaneous: 5 Needs a little more work but the groundwork is nice.
Final Score: 33 Would a section on the amendment's implementation be viable? Could be a productive area. Definitely a good start overall though.
Reviewer: --Sir Jam 11:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Humour: 7 Ha, this is great. I love the writing style and everything.
Concept: 7 Well, it's an obvious concept. Add a few 'unexpected twists', but otherwise keep at it in the same way and it shall succeed.
Prose and formatting: 6 With a bit of polishing (redlinks, categories etc.) and a bit more fleshing out it will be good.
Images: 6 The post-it note one is good, and I suppose the others do their job, but nothing special.
Miscellaneous: 0 N/A
Final Score: 26 Is good. To make VFH, though, I get the feeling some 'out of the box' stuff might be needed, as JT hinted.
Reviewer: Hindleyite Converse 11:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)