Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Diamonds & Rust
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
The writing here is mostly done. I've got another
5 or 6 4 or 5 half-shopped images, of which probably another 2 or 3 1 or 2 will end up getting finished and added to the article. Linking isn't fully complete, especially in the parts added since the PLS deadline. I would also love to have someone British to help touch up everything presented as a direct Halford quote. (I was planning to ask Orian since he is, well, British like Halford and going to be forced to read the article anyway, but he disappeared.)
I'm now going to explain where I was coming from when I wrote the article. Up to you whether you want to read the rest of this paragraph before or after reading the article. The concept I had in mind was to imagine a universe where Diamonds & Rust wasn't a Judas Priest cover of a Joan Baez song about fucking Bob Dylan but rather a Judas Priest original song about Bob Dylan (with none of the original verses removed). I then extrapolated a series of events that would lead to that situation. The last bit extrapolates forward from that point. The article itself is pretty dry. The images exist for the sole purpose of making it seem real. Most of the more blatant jokes are in the captions. On the subject of sexuality, I've decided to go the horribly unorthodox route of presenting it as a realistic friendship between a straight guy and a gay guy who are aware of but don't hang on each others' preferences.
I've done the same stupid thing I've done many times before and written an article that will only be fully appreciated by someone who is intimately familiar with two very different subjects. Of course, I'm hoping other people will find at least some of the humor in it. In this case, I'm really against the Wikipedia template, even more than usual, but you as the reviewer might be interested in some of the background. Here's some of the bigger stuff: wikipedia:Bob Dylan#Motorcycle accident and reclusion, wikipedia:Rob Halford#Early years, wikipedia:Diamonds & Rust (song), wikipedia:Diamonds & Rust, the referenced Playboy interivew, and the Dylan memoir the made-up quote is taken from. I'll gladly answer any questions you have. There's no rush on the review.
--monika 22:44, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
- I'll get this done in 12 hours.--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 17:05, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
|I like to write a lot of things, I’m pretty good at Pee Reviews, and I received an award Author of the Month Award and one feature. Also I like Avenged Sevenfold, Modern Warfare 2, Halo 3, and brunettes and emo girls.|
|Concept:||10||I do not usually do reviews on long articles, but since there’s very little medium and/or short articles, I decided to give this a shot as it looks pretty reviewable in my terms.
After reading the entire article, I was quite please. After looking up the song online I know you actually did your research (or you just a fan of the song or a fan of the band). I’ve seen too many people do little to no research on a subject and/or try to make up something on a subject, thinking it’ll be funny. To make a long story short, they do not know what they’re talking about, and I’m glad this is not the case here. So good job for research; if I was a teacher, I would give you an A++++.
I do like the fact that in the article the song was written by Rob Halford instead of that woman whatever her name is. I actually think its funny, and since I do the same thing with my article, it definitely should stick. Besides, when is Uncyclopedia ever right?
|Prose and Formatting:||7||Very little mistakes, which makes my job as reviewer more harder as I suppose to be as in-depth as possible, but makes it easier for you because you do not have to fix so many mistakes. I will show the few mistakes you made in order.
And for the red link, get rid of it. It serves no purpose and red links are simply fucking annoying. I grow tired of seeing them everywhere, so don’t make that mistake.
|Humo(u)r:||7||You said the article is pretty dry, and I agree. There were a couple of things I chuckled at (ex: the ‘’’About the Song’’’ quote gave me a few good chuckles), but other times I’m like, “This is good, but the humor wasn’t executed the right way.” But the humor was in the captions of the article’s images, which I’ll get to later. Probably the best advice to spice the article up is looking up similar articles and getting good ideas on how to make something dull turn into laughing positive. I’ve done so in the past, and I think it earned me a feature. I’m not saying copy what they’re saying, just get a glimpse on how they word their stuff and apply it to your own. Also, reading HTBFANJS can help; I known experience users who still use it, so it’s more of a reminder. As for scoring, I’ll be generous and give you a seven since I’m in a good mood today.|
|Images:||9||Damn you got a lot. I’ve seen people make articles with one to no images, but seeing something like this is usually uncommon (for me at least). But all of them do support you article. But I think you should move the gallery section towards the bottom of the article, after the Judas Priest section. The captions also worked perfectly, they support your images as well as the entire article. However, I think that you should take some of the captions and use them for the article itself. But that’s up to you.|
|Miscellaneous:||7||My overall grade of this article.|
|Final Score:||40||I have to say this is an interesting read. It has a good theme, good images, good writing, it’s just the humor needs a little work as well as some other things, but otherwise, good job. If you have any questions/comments, just go to my talk page and I’ll be happy to answer them. Good Luck with any changes! Cheers!|
|Reviewer:||--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 05:06, June 19, 2010 (UTC)|
Thanks. I'll do some sleeping on this and see what changes I'll be making in the morning. Here are a few unimportant comments on some of the things that I may or may not be changing.
- The "I'm not sure how much-" bit is all grammatically correct and a near direct quote from the real Playboy article (and trust me, Playboy copyedits its stuff). I actually considered adding an s to concern as a subtle joke, but figured it would go over too many peoples' heads, as it implies that 'Bob Dylan and Rob Halford' is a singular unit, like a band name or something, even though two names with an and between them is generally considered plural. Both 'it's's are 'it is'.
- Singsongy is a real word. It's the adjective form of singsong, which is the kind of voice you use when reading nursery rhymes or limericks. The British also use it to mean sing-along, but I'm using it in the American sense.
- Unironically is a semi-standard word; in cases where one wants the actual opposite of ironic, one uses "sincere" or "straight" or something. "Unironic" is used specifically for double irony, when one expects something to be ironic (not what is expected) and it isn't. An ironic cover refers to a specific type of cover song, which most cross-genre covers (such as Ben Folds' Bitches Ain't Shit or Ahmet and Dweezil Zappa's Baby One More Time) but not all (including, of all things, Judas Priest's Diamonds & Rust).
- I normally agree with you about red links (and you'll note that every other link in the article was carefully hand-chosen and not just [[ ]] thrown around words where I thought there might be an article) but in this case, the fact that there isn't a Warren Zevon article is a far far bigger problem.
- I moved the gallery farther down (where I originally had it - couldn't decide) but not all the way down. It's intended to be read in-line, and both chronologically and in joke order needs to take place before the last section. Anyway, between those two options, do you have a preference?
My reasoning for the jokes in the captions staying in the captions - and feel free to berate me on this if you disagree - is that they are intended to be low-level details, on the scale of "What did you eat for breakfast today?" while the article is very high level, like "What do you do for a living?" and that if I were to put them in the body of the article, I would need to flesh out mid-level details on the order of "What's your favorite book?" in order to make the article feel smooth and consistent (and specifically not feel like that particular kind of edit where someone new comes in and adds a one-line sentence about some stupid detail they think is funny, like, say, this one...). Apparently by some standards, the article is already long, and I went out of my way to make it as short as possible.
Anyway, I'd love any specific notes - where specifically the humor wasn't executed, what specific bits of HTBF might be applicable, which specific similar articles I might draw inspiration from - you might have. Dry researched abstruse stuff is my thing (and it has definitely cost me features on articles I wouldn't dream of changing just to get a feature) and when I said "It is dry" I meant "It is typed with a straight face" (not "It is dull", which those same words could also mean) so when you say "Yeah, it's dry. Fix it," there's a jump in logic as to whether or not dryness is a problem; I'm sorry if I made you think I agreed ahead of time that it was and that you wouldn't need to bother convincing me it was.
I apologize for my gushiness. This response was longer than intended. I'll shut up now. Thanks again.
--monika 06:25, June 19, 2010 (UTC)