Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Bryan Adams (quick)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 04:25, December 7, 2008 by Mnbvcxz (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


edit Bryan Adams

Megaman2000 11:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Humour: 3.5 First off, your article is hard to read because of the bad grammar and ugly formatting. See the prose section for how to deal with it.

Second, your article is much too random and crass. If your using crassness and vulgarity as a substitute for humor, its not funny. There is a place for crassness; however, crassness, along with racism, boobage, gore, random one-liners, in-jokes, and the like are generally bad ideas. As a rule, you should ask yourself, can I get rid of the crassness (or other generally frowned upon methods) without damaging the humor? If your answer is maybe, your probably can; if you answer is probably not, you still should try.

The article, especially about an obscure subject, needs to tell a story, as it were. For that to work, your article needs to be consistent (i.e. not contradict itself) and avoid outlandish material so that the reader can mentally follow it. You should satirize the subject matter, not fill it with random gay jokes and subject bashing. See United States presidential election, 1840 for a good example of satire. Now, you should generally be hostile to your subject, but keep the hostility within reason.

Third, I don't think the subject matter is funny. I don't know the person, and you reader really doesn't feel like reading a wikipedia article to understand your article. Did the person actually do anything that is funny? If he did, then can you learn from reading your article?

For example the Gary Glitter, although its not a good article by any stretch, at least has some potential. Even though I didn't know him from Adam when I read the article, I can gather that he is in fact a pedophile. Your article, on the other hand, looks like a random attack article against an obscure musician that nobody was heard about or cares about.

Finally, I would lose the lists and prune the quotes. Quotes, and more so lists, are generally space wasters and not funny. Does the reader really want to read thru your entire list?
Concept: 4.2 Subject Matter: 5 This is a contemporary musician star who I do not know. Its ok to write bios of relatively obscure historical figures, but modern day nobody's aren't a good idea. Basically, if its a historical figure I don't know, the reader may feel that he should know that, and might go check wikipedia; however if its an obscure 3rd rate actor/musician, the reader will think its fancruft.

Take on the Subject Matter: 3.5 Your article is very random and crass, and all over the place.
Prose and formatting: 4 Your article has the following issues.

Spelling and grammar Always use proper spelling and grammar unless you are violating it as a joke. It is ok to use intentional misspellings (in places), the reader should know that the misspelling, (or bad grammar or technically correct but hard to follow prose), is intentional. A simple spell check should help you, then I'd suggest reading the article out loud to catch any remaining mistakes.

Excessive Bolding Bolding is used at the begining of "sub-sub-sections" or occassionally, for emphasis. It is not used for quotes or titles.

First Header should be removed. Its placing the TOC right below the quotes and on top of the article. The reader already knows the subject matter.

No Sub-sections As a rule, you should have sub-sections in your sections. Some of your sections should be demoted to sub-sections; several single paragraph long sections in a row are ugly. Also, try to keep your capitalization consistent in the articles. Also keep the spelling the sections correct. Errors there stand out.

Red links I'd suggest you get rid of all red links. Some reviewers will say that a few red links are ok; however, even one red link adds a good bit of ugliness to your article. They make your article look unmaintained and unpolished. In the eyes of most readers, a red link is like a garment on your living room floor; it just looks unclean.
Images: 5.5 Nothing really stands out. You have a picture of the subject matter, which is good. However, the captions are either bombastic or random. None of the images and captions pass the giggle test. However, you might to keep all of them if you can't find anything better. On topic unfunny pics are better than random pics.
Miscellaneous: 4.5 Improvablity Score. Unless this guy did some really funny or satirizerable things I have not heard off, I think your article might not be improvable to good article quality. An article about a Mr. Nobody who did nothing really can't be make into a good article, or even a marginally good article. At best, you'd be left with a grammatically correct and properly formatted humorless article.
Final Score: 21.7 Did Bryan Adams ever do anything that is worth satirizing? If he did, then I should know it when I read this article. If not, at the risk of sounding harsh, this article probably shouldn't exist.
Reviewer: --Mnbvcxz 04:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools