Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Hotel California
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
This Article has just been kinda festering around for a while here. I tried to do what I could, but I think it's written itself into a corner. I know it needs something, I just can't put my foot on it. Any help would be greatly appreciated.188.8.131.52 03:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
184.108.40.206 03:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Projectmayhem666-has stamped this article for review.
|Humour:||5||Fairly average humour wise, I do have issue with a couple of things, I know I focus more on the negative but you want to improve it not get praise, thats what VFH is for. On the quotes, use quotes that you're not going to use in your article, will make it alot better when the reader reads the article because they won't think you only know a select few lines.
The introduction could be better, the sentences could be longer which stops the article flowing becaused they're so short. In the readers head it reads like a list of points you could keep them the same length but each sentence makes a different point, hence the list being the first thing I thought when I read it. It could be funnier and use some puns, you've really only quoted the lyrics at the end, you could have done with quoting them more than once to make a clever play on words, would make the article very well written, or you could take the piss, which is usually the easiest way to go on this site.
In the first section, the house of the rising sun reference, the house of the rising sun is a whore house so why would they own Hotel California too? Pointless point to point out but its besides the point. The article, again like the intro could be funnier, I do like how you've wound the quotes into the article, but there isn't enough there to be "side-splitting". The final quote the [he] etc citations are completely unneccessary, they should be shot and from the corpse an I will appear.
In the second section, you need to expand on these points, I found myself simply asking, but why? (other than a quote) I see what you're doing but you need to make an article using the quotes, not just putting the quotes on their own. The [they] citation is still unneccessary.
In the third section, is a bit better with the quotes but still really needs alot of work, in the first paragraph you worked with the quotes rather than just used them or worked around them, so it reads alot better and works better too, you should use this in the previous paragraphs (or proceding paragraphs if they don't already). In the second paragraph when you say wine hasn't been served since 1969, I don't actually think that is what's meant by "we haven't had that kind of spirit here since 1969", I think it's more that he's in a good mood (or good spirits) when he says "bring me my wine", I think this because wine isn't nor ever has been a spirit. In the third paragraph I think rather than saying it ruins the silverware, which I don't believe is mentioned in the song at all, you should focus on not being able to kill the beast, something like unable to cut the meat or something, I dunno, its your article.
Forth section is funny, I like the solo reference, brilliant.
The last section does not work at all, you lose context and make it all Hollywood here, it just doesn't fit with the rest of the article, you're going to have to re-write this one.
|Concept:||6||Concept = 4/5 Implementation = 2/5, could have done this alot better, but its a first draft and it has potential to be a great article.|
|Prose and formatting:||8||second section. "In order that guests may enjoy a stress-free stay" should really be "In order to ensure that guests enjoy a stress-free stay" no need for the may, because a hotel would want them to, the first part was worded wrong.
In the check-out section, arpeggiated isn't a word, you could just say arpeggio chord sequence instead of what you wrote, by could I mean you should.
Not so bad for prose, looks preffy good on reading.
|Images:||3||One image? this article needs 2 more, no more or less, 2 more. The one you have isn't that funny, its ok and average. Please add more.|
|Miscellaneous:||4||4 because its a good idea but it hasn't been done very well, there is a good bit, the third section, but the eagles aren't smiling.|
|Final Score:||26||Alot of potential, needs some work, but it could be a very good article.|
|Reviewer:||--—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 13:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)|
Thanks for your recommendations. I changed it up a little; added an image (can't import my own, just an IP). By the way, i'm pretty sure arpeggiated is a word, i checked a couple dictionaries. 220.127.116.11 01:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Arpeggiated would actually mean the same as arpeggio, and its not in my large oxford dictionary (I checked before correcting it). Just sign up to import them, its free. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 13:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)