User:Luvvy/Sandbox/S3

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Bouncywikilogopink

Here's a little framework to refresh your memory:

  • [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.

So you're gonna go potty on my article?

“Just a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down.”
~ Mary Poppins on telling you your article sucks

Hello, <insert name here>. You seem to have spotted my Pee Review request. Now, first, I'd like to make a few points absolutely clear. There are rules on how I think one should pee on my stuff. Why? Because a good review is not about the score as much as it is about making the author of the article know the article's weak points and it's strong points, and to get an idea where or how they could start improving on it, without them thinking you're a complete dick.

The Basics you should already know

The guidelines (which you have naturally read and re-read occasionally) are a good place to start considering where and how to start your review, however since you'll be giving scores, let me remind you of the scale. These articles are mostly worth [9]'s and [10]'s and have earned them already. If you think some part or feature of my article is up to par with them, give me an 8, 9 or 10 for it. Make sure to mention why you consider the feature in the article to be so great, high scores without comments for an article give nothing to the author to work with.

An average article you don't have anything exceptionally good or bad to say about is worth a [7]. This doesn't exclude some form of comment for the score. "Meh, I kinda liked it." is not a comment. Lower scores than that mean that there is something wrong with an article. A score of [6] or [5] probably earns it a {{rewrite}} tag. A score of [3], [2] or [1] means the article is genuine crap. If it isn't deleted yet, it may risk being deleted soon.

Then last but not least! As comes to [0]. If an article has no images, then it is kosher in the Iscore section. Elsewhere, it's a big no-no. Don't give a 0 for anything else, it's an insult to your intelligence.

Then for the stuff I'd like to emphasise

A coherent, well written comment is better than a random line of ridicule, such as "Whoa! I giggled." Reading the guidelines helps here, but it is strongly recommended to consider a few more things, such as complete sentences of over two words, and an attempt at coherent rhetoric. You could even benefit from this later on in life.

Have you ever considered this? How's your own writing reviewed? Can you honestly claim you've ever written anything feature-worthy? If your own articles get plastered with {{rewrite}} or {{fix}}, then how can you tell if the article you're reviewing is better than yours, or if it's worthy of nomination? You use that framework to form an idea of where on the scale an article lands. A poor reviewer thinking an article is funny does encourage the author to nominate an article for VFH, but if it gets bashed in the voting stage, the poor reviewer may have caused more damage to the author's self esteem than telling them honestly it's not really that good of an article in the first place.

Remember, some like poopey fart humour, others prefer high-brow satire and subtlety, or even outright absurd reasons for laughter (Just look at John Cleese & Co with their whole Monty Python thing...), so if you can't understand the joke, don't automatically bash it. Perhaps you would want to review another article in stead and leave this one to someone who has an idea of what the article's about..?

...or even a whole lot better...

...Make suggestions to the author on how to make the humour more accessible to your kind of audience.

Soften the blows

Behind every single article you see here, you have a living, breathing person. Someone may have poured a lot of energy, effort and emotions into their article. Which is why they might not be happy with finding themselves be insulted, their hard work bashed without any positive comments and the scores for the article being haphazardly thrown about. Even though they might agree on the total score, they might not agree on the why and where the scores are distributed.

The best way to deal these blows is to think of the author's emotional level as if they were an eight year old girl. They start crying, if you don't give them a spoonful of sugar with the medicine. If something sucks, try to balance it out with something good. It may take a while to figure this one out, but often, it only takes a couple of minutes, going to the fridge and having a sammich or a soda to get your blood sugar levels up from cranky bitch to pleasantly happy before you get back to it. Reviewing is an unpaid job, so don't overwork yourself while feeling cranky.


Personal tools
projects
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/User:Luvvy/Sandbox/S3
uncyclopedia.wikia.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2014-35
46245
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:X2KDSEOGHU42CH4E2PDH4JBCMOMSW6UM
<urn:uuid:001e5fd9-ddd9-4b5e-b4e5-a983558156fc>
2014-08-22T13:02:13Z
199.27.78.131
sha1:WTGV5IB3HBSP4XRHZHBZREULUKKOUGME
<urn:uuid:693dc58a-f266-4c35-b445-022f27d468ba>
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/User:Luvvy/Sandbox/S3
response
<urn:uuid:ff9790de-3d5f-432a-ba39-657568261b4e>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-180-136-8.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2014-35
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for August 2014
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf