From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
126.96.36.199 11:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Still working on it... Pup t 08:50, 20/08/2009
|Prose and |
The writing style,
layout and overall
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.
Run it through a spell checker. It was bad.
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
How are the images?
Are they relevant,
with good quality
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.
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.
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.
The article's overall
quality - that indefinable
|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.|
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.
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|