Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Cleveland Steamers

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archived

Guidelines

FAQ

Pee Week

Committee

RotM

Cleveland Steamers

Just wrote this recently, and wanted to improve it. - Prof. Ahh(to the)Diddums^{[FUCK-A-DOODLE-DOO!]} 08:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	3	I really didn't find this funny, it just came across as juvenile vulgarity. It has that feel that its trying to by on vulgarity alone without any humor, sort of like reading low-grade dirty joke books from the 1980's. Vulgarity in and of itself is never funny, and shoe-horning vulgarity into an article is not funny. Also, unrestrained crassness does not work with innuendo, any innuendo after unrestrained vulgarity is ruined. That doesn't mean you should never have vulgarity, but if you want to get by on innuendo and double ententes, you need to pull your punches thru-out. Also, your skipping from the 1910's to modern history. That gives your article a "stubby feeling" to it.
Concept:	4.5	I assume this is making fun of the Cleveland Indians. However, I didn't really get the joke or any of the references to the Cleveland Indians. I'm not sure if you can get this one to high quality, you might be able, or it might be an exercise in futility.
Prose and formatting:	6.5	Some spelling errors, but it looks ok over-all.
Images:	7	You have 2 self-made pic for this, which is the main reason for the relatively high score. However, they don't really work in the article. Its always good to have the logo of a made up team in its article; it makes it look more professionally done. However, pics also need to be funny in themselves. I did not find any of the images particularly humorous. Now, there are occasions when you'll need a relatively unfunny pic to make the article "look right, but that is exception, not the rule.
Miscellaneous:	5	Improvablity score It might be funny if you add more references to the actual Cleveland Indians and flesh out the article more. I'd also suggest more innuendo and less outright scatology.
Final Score:	26	Keep working on and good luck.
Reviewer:	--Mnbvcxz 03:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)