Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida

The page was started and largely created by PF4Eva (one of the relatively unsung very good writers on the site), then let go into the mix, and recently I've played with it and the concept. A classic song which deserves, imnho, a great article, so thanks for your help and advice. Aleister in Chains 25 Jan. MMX

I was raised on this song, but I'd be well over 24 hours. I will have a look at it sometime soon though. Pup
Yeah, that would be great. Someone 'raised on this song' would be perfect for any participation in/on this article. Take as much time as needed. Aleister in Chains 3:06 3 Feb. MMX

Taking a bit too long here Puppy, anyone can now review this one. --ChiefjusticeDS 13:17, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Vmiflag ¡Hola! This valiant VMI cadet is here
to guard this article while
it is reviewed by:

-- Sf13 Upsilonsigmasigmacrest

If he hasn't reviewed it
within 24 hours since
09:45 EST 15 Feb, remove this
tag and shout at him.


Got it, 24 hours --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 09:45 EST 15 Feb, 2010

Oops... I wasn't claiming this for myself before... should have been a little clearer, sorry. Pup 02:43, 16/02/2010
It's ok. I'm actually very tired, it's best that I get to this tomorrow. --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 23:34 EST 15 Feb, 2010

sorry for the delay, doing it right now --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 10:54 EST 16 Feb, 2010

Humour: 7 The way I review, I generally put the majority of my comments and suggestions in the humor section. This allows me to be lazy keep all of my thoughts organized. I'll give you my first impressions after one read through and then go in section by section for a more detailed look.

Initial Impressions

After first reading the article, it felt kind of meh to me. After then listening to the song to refresh my memory, and then reading your article again, the jokes are actually pretty funny. To me this presents a problem: a majority of the jokes are so closely tied into the song that the average person who stumbles upon this without having heard the song in a while won't get most of the jokes.

Section by Section

Introduction

The introduction is pretty straightforward and funny with the obligatory hippie pot reference, but one problem I see here is a problem throughout. This is inconsistency of tone. Here you assert that the song is probably one of the greatest musical achievements ever, obvious hyperbole, but it sets the tone for the article being sort of as if a huge fan boy had written it. The tone you take throughout mixes between unconditional praise and mocking of the songs length by the author and the various other members of the band. I will probably get into this more in the concept section, I see some potential for an under-used angle of yours in this article.

History

This was probably the silliest and most enjoyable of the section for me. Despite saying this, there are a few areas that I really haven't made up my mind yet if I like them or not. First and foremost is your use of strikethrough text with the names at the beginning of the section. It just feels like a forced and extraneous joke. The joke continues into the picture to the left, but more on that latter. Secondly, I like the joke about the band working on the song literally 'all of their lives, but I don't know if I'm so enamored with your setting for the release of the song. While the joke that the song came out alongside "Animal Crackers in my Soup" within this context, I feel that falsely putting them into the context of the early 1900's and with Thomas Edison is is just a little too much silliness. What I'm saying is that you can keep the begging part with "began writing a pseudo-heavy metal song which he entitled, "In the Garden of Eden" in December of 1936" without any trouble (and it's funny!) but you shouldn't keep that gag going longer than this. You should put them into the proper context of the 60's with the release. You could make a joke about how the world had been patiently waiting since the 40's for the album's release and it had finally arrived or something.

Your bit about Ingle introducing the song to the rest of the band is gold though. With the context of the song's sudden ending, it's hysterical. I was alone in the room when I was reading that bit and it got an audible laugh out of me, which is hard to do with written word.

For this section my overall advice would be to remove the overarching 30's theme and put them back into the context of the 60's.

Today

Oh, this section is good to go as is.

Woodstock

What you have here is fine within this context, but again, the 1930's setting just isn't working all that well imo. I think mentioning woodstock and making a led zeppelin joke is a good idea for a section, but you need to re-tool it for the 60's.

Lyrics and Incorrect Titles

You need to remove lyrics from the title since you don't discuss the lyrics at all in this section. What you do have about the song's name is really funny. I also like how the image ties into the joke well too. I don't have much more to say about this section.

Anatomy

At first I didn't like this section because of the loud images, well text boxes. The black background and the bright colors come off rather strong. After giving it some thought, I like your content and idea here. A suggestion I can make to tone this down would be to scrap the text boxes, and replace them with the same text in the boxes with different color font superimposed over psychedelic designs or pictures of the band performing. I think that could really help improve this section.

Trivia

not really a section, good stuff, but I feel this could be made longer.

Final Humor Comments

Generally a funny article, but I feel like two things stand out at me quite a bit:

  • The overarching 1930's setting. I feel that this adds an element of silliness that goes a little over the top considering the subject, general tone, and content of your article. I like the idea that the song has taken a long time to write, begun in the 1930's and such, but like I said earlier, making a joke about a prolonged release date and then focusing on the band during the 60's would be better.
  • The humor is very specific to the song. This isn't a bad thing, after all the article is about only the song and not the band, but I feel that it's the only humor in the article. A little bit of extra humor not based on jokes that entirely require having the song fresh in your head would be a good addition. In no way am I telling you to remove what you have and replace it, just augment it. It doesn't really even need that much, but just enough to keep the average reader interested.
Concept: 6.5 What generally hurts you score here is the 1930's theme. I think there's a lot more potential for satirical humor based on the psychedelic aspects of the song in the 60's instead of mixing iron butterfly in with Duke Ellington and Shirley Temple.

Also, just an idea (something I think I touched on earlier), you seem to hint that the other band members besides Ingle don't like the song, but you don't really develop that idea. I think that there's a large amount of potential for humor here. It could easily make a running joke throughout the article (you seem to hint at that with the .gif of the drummer 'during the 45 minute solo').

The addition of a section about people's reactions to the song could also be a good idea.

Overall I think you've done a good job, it's hard to make an entire article satirizing only one song. However, I really don't dig the 1930's setting.

Prose and formatting: 8.5 Very nice job with including appropriate Wikipedia links and use of bold text. I have a few misgivings concerning your use of strikethrough text throughout, but I don't really think it's that big of a deal. strike through to me can be used effectively for gags concerning sincerity of one's words or for "author's mistakes" but I feel that your used is a little forced for "fart-humor" sort of purposes, bad puns I suppose. That's how it kind of comes across to me. generally I think if you wish to use sub-sections you should have a minimum of two ('today'), but I think that's just a little bit of the proper outlining technique I use for note-taking. maybe adding all of the previous material from the history section under the subset "development" would be a good idea, but I leave it entirely up to you since it isn't much of a problem.

your tone sort of changes between criticism and praise throughout, I think you should go through and tidy up just a little.

Your score would be higher here if the text boxes didn;t stand out so much, but I already touched on that above, so moving on...

Images: 6 I'll go through and do comments for each image and caption;
  • Your first image is very appropriate considering the nature of your article. It introduces the band and song title. What i don't particularly like is the ending of the caption. I think you need to find a more applicable and believable one-liner. There's no conceivable reason, from a satirical standpoint, that the world criminal court would have to rule on something so arbitrary and not in their original jurisdiction. What I'm saying is that the caption falls flat for me. All of the band members in the picture appear to be looking at the drummer, perhaps this would be a good place for a long drum solo reference. just an idea
  • This image is based off a bad gag in my opinion. When I opened the article and immediately saw a random image of Kris Kringle eating cookies, I didn't know what to expect. The caption, however, is pretty good. I like the joke that the other members of the band have enough time to take breaks during other members solos. it also implies that the audience doesn't particularly care. I would find a different image to make the same caption gag with.
  • I like this image, it's quite funny and ties in with your text well. The caption works with it, but if you choose to dump the 1930's theme, you'll have to change the date.
  • This is actually a really funny .gif inclusion, I like the caption too.

If it weren't for the santa picture, I think you'd have gotten between a 7 or an 8.5 in my book.

Miscellaneous: 7.5 The level of enjoyment I got from the article in it's current state.
Final Score: 35.5 fairly solid effort. I know that the above is going to read critically, but what you have here is good. If I had to make one particular suggestion for improving this article, it would be dumping the 1930's theme. As always, if you have questions, comments, hate speech that you want to throw my way, my talk page is always ready to receive abuse kind words.
Reviewer: --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 13:17 EST 16 Feb, 2010 If you found this review to be helpful, I would appreciate your vote for reviewer of the month!
Personal tools
projects