Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Flea

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Flea

212.167.5.6 11:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:POTR/Template:PEEing

Still working on it... Pup t 08:50, 20/08/2009

Prose and
  Formatting:

The writing style,
spelling, grammar,
layout and overall
appearance.
3  

The writing style:

Okay, the writing style is like that of a child. Now that's fine if you're writing a blog or a piece in a teen forum, or even if you are writing from a child's perspective, like in LazyTown, or What I did on my hols.

Part of the issue is of course you have written a band/musician article. Now I will not say that it is impossible to write a funny article based upon music and musicians that you like. Just recently Tool (band) has proved itself to be feature-worthy and it is a true, encyclopaedic article. Five tough life lessons... and The Great Gig in the Sky are also examples of good band/song/articles - The fact that these all featured within a one week period is pure coincidence.

Spelling:

Run it through a spell checker. It was bad.

Grammar:

See spelling

Layout:

Anybody who has read any of my reviews knows that I'm not a fan of "Lead-in quotes", something which I have bee criticised for a number of times. And the reason why is two-fold

  1. They're not funny. I'm not just talking about this article, I'm talking about them all. I have laughed at about three lead-in quotes. I've read thousands. You're possibility of getting a laugh is less than half a percent. In fact looking at the demographic of Uncyclopedia, It is far more likely that you would be a contributor who is your late forties, and pregnant. If you are in your late forties and pregnant, then feel free to leave them there.
  2. They suck away at VALUABLE REAL-ESTATE.
    Flea whitespace in red
    And what do I mean by VALUABLE REAL-ESTATE you may very well ask. Put it this way. If you were a town planner and the size of your town was 1 km by 1km square, you would be saving every bit of that land for the best possible purpose. You wouldn't say "Let's put a 50 metre wide wall around the outside of the town on all sides" as you would be cutting off 19% of your VALUABLE REAL-ESTATE. Now here you have a web page that has to capture someone's attention and keep it until they've scrolled to the bottom. on their very first view of the page they are going to see... well, the first view. This is all VALUABLE REAL-ESTATE. Now the last thing you want to have happen is have this filled by unfunny writing, white space, and a contents box. Given what I said about the quotes being unfunny, and I've rarely laughed at a contents box, you have to have engaging writing that set's up your premise and draws the reader in immediately. I've taken the liberty of making the whitespace red so that you can see how much is lost in the frame, and the whitespace. Given that everything else is quote or contents - I would stop reading here.

Overall appearance:

It leaves a lot to be desired. short sections, poorly planned out visually, no real attention to the spelling or grammar. To be honest I had to fight with myself to ensure that I read it all. It's really poorly done, and needs Intensive care.

Concept:
How good an idea
is behind the article?
4 It's an article about a band. Okay, there is a little bit of pun work that goes through based upon the songs and knowledge of the artists in question. But there is nothing that makes this stand out, and a lot that make me want to turn my head and cry.

If you were to look at some of the examples that I suggested before, and well as looking at a few more musical features, you might be able to get something significant out of it. Got through the previously featured articles and look for what works in there.

Or try and approach it from a completely different angle. Make this an article about Fleas, and through in your RHCP and Flea references in there, use latin names like Daven Avarro, or play on the fact that the singer is called Ant Hony Kiedis (or however it's spelt. I'll listen to him sing, but I'm not writing him a bloody birthday card!)

Whatever it is the concept has to stand out. Or this will become just another band article.

Humour:
How funny is it?
Why is it funny?
How can it be funnier?
4 Now the real issue here is that I have problems in commenting on the humour due to the extremely poor writing style. It is a confused and entangled mess in regards to the flow that it tries to present. Good humour works on rythm and meter, on flow and punch. This punchs where itshould flow and flows where it should punch.

Does that make sense? If not, then try and think of stand up comedy. Good stand up comedy. Every comedian has their own style. Billy Crystal is different from Robin Williams is different from Whoopi Goldberg. (First names that popped into my head, not suggesting that these are good, let alone the best.) Although these are all funny, thy all have their own pace. And they have pauses, and slow build up, and large crescendos. It is almost musical. Even Stephen Wright, who many would say has a very random approach, delivers his jokes with a wonderful sense of timing.

Putting that aside, however, you have an article predominantly built around puns and self-referential humour. Five tough life lessons... has a strong reliance on puns, but they are well crafted, to say the least, and they go well beyond the one-liner aspect.

Self-referential humour, if done badly, looks like vanity, and in this case it borders on arrogance. I'm going to lift out the following...

Cquote1

Incase you didn't get it or your just to daft to think about it this segment was littered with references to the song Dani California, Yes I know referencing songs by The Red Hot Chili Peppers in an article somewhat related to them is a crutch for foppish hacks who think it aids them in their pursuit of humour.... Fuck it!....I AM a foppish hack!
Cquote2

Now this could be considered funny, but the problem is that the real point that you're making here is that you don't care about the reader and their enjoyment. Now as the writer you want the reader to like you, unless you derive the humour from the fact that you, as a writer, are an object of derision, and deserve top be ridiculed, a technique that is used in this article, and in this one.

Images:
How are the images?
Are they relevant,
with good quality
and formatting?
3  

Image 1

Okay, this is firstly a very poor potatochop. It does have an element of humour - something that I was discussing before in regards to using the pun of his name in order to make your article.

Image 2

It has nothing to do with the article. The person you pointed out as looking like flea, doesn't really. Or at least not without giving some poetic license.

Image 3

Again, this has nothing to do with the article. And it's not a funny image of itself. In fact it doesn't convey the emotion you were looking because - and I am being very critical - it looks like a posed photo, rather than a natural one. Almost like someone got their girlfriend, who was an amateur actress, to side on the grass and said "look miserable."

If you are going to change the concept of this you are also going to have to change the images.

Miscellaneous:
The article's overall
quality - that indefinable
something.
3 I simply wasn't impressed at all. There wasn't any real effort put into this except maybe getting a discography and stealing a number of song titles and twisting them into puns. But there is a way to salvage this. Just follow my guide to uncyclopedian popularity.
Final Score:
How much can it be
improved and what
are the most important
areas to work on.
17 # Get the concept right. Think long and hard about the way you are going to do this. if you can't explain the concept in three easy sentences, then it's too complex. If you can't explain the concept at all, it's too vague. A one sentence concept can be really funny, but simple does not mean the same as easy.
  1. Get the humour right. Read HTBFANJS. and then you've done that, read it again. And then again. There are no elements of humour as such, but if you start thinking about humour from above, then you can see how it all links in together.
  2. Get the spelling/grammar/writing style/voice right. If it makes no sense when read then it loses all humour. You can use elements of subtlety - I don't need a laugh track, an exclamation mark or Rimshot to know when to laugh. And spend a little time getting it right. And then a little more.
  3. Get the images right. Although articles can be built around the images, by doing this you fall under the trap of having an article based upon something that has one joke, and not much more. VFP is a much more divisive vote than VFH. And if you don't have the skills yourself, put something up on UN:PIC and eventually you'll get a response.
  4. Get the layout right. It has to draw me in, and keep me going. Use your space wisely. Play with it and change it and move it around and then do it all again until it's right.
  5. Start it all again. Every one of these five aspects is extremely important, so at every stage go over these and work out if it fits in with it. You can write something fantastic but lose it in the font, or have the perfect image but kill it with bad spelling.

But the most important thing is to take your time. Think a lot. Think of everything you've got. This will still be here tomorrow, but you may not. Given that this is a musical based review, there is a need for some musical humour. I apologise for this poor attempt, but let this be a lesson as to how hard it can be.

Reviewer: Pup t 10:14, 20/08/2009
Personal tools
projects