Okay, I'm the guy who came from nowhere in about the middle of this year and started writing a number of articles one after the other, several of which got featured, and has now apparently slowed down as he is back in gainful full time employment and is frustrated by the lack of time that he has had to be on Uncyclopedia. I had a feeling that I'd already done a review on this article, but can't find it now, so I'm reading it again with fresh eyes anyway, so my results may be utterly different from what I said before.
I like the writing style overall as it fits in with an encyclopaedic tone quite well, but does drop out with the line "I think with the title they were just looking for a rhyme. How 'bout you, Johnny?" and the other odd occasional bit of editorial comment. This may work in a little better if the editorial comment was actually quotes from industry insiders.
I'm thinking along the lines of the song Rapture by Blondie which was one of the first white women to record a "rap" song, and enlisted the help of Grandmaster Flash. The song is now considered a classic song and a turning point for the mainstream acceptance of Rap/Hip Hop, but in an interview Grandmaster Flash was asked for what his opinion was on the lyrics of the song, and his comment was along the lines of I worked on that song closely with this white woman trying to rap, and I have no idea what she was trying to say.
Try to keep the neutral point of view. The last line of the Record deal section has the same issue. Remember when you are talking about celebrities like the Keebler Elves (of which the real life example that springs to mind when reading this is The Spice Girls) we are talking about media whores. There should be millions of quotes and sound bytes that have been used by artists of his calibre that can be twisted into this article. "Who gives a hoot about fun? We're making heaps of cash off this stuff!" is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
Only the one that I noticed, which I've fixed.
No major issues here, although I am not the champion of proof-reading to the same standard of User:Why do I need to provide this? or User:Under User, so I'd suggest getting this put through to the proof-reading service along the way, however I think that there may need to be some re-writing along the way before you quite get to this stage.
While I don't consider myself the champion of proof-reading, I would suggest that I have some fairly significant skills in regards to layout. Overall there is nothing here that I have a real issue with on layout, but there is a minor issue that I have relating to the size and positioning of photos as they relate to text. I'll go a little more into this in the images section.
It's a good look to it overall, although as I've said there are some minor issues with images which I'll come back to later. However you've minimised the use of whitespace and the article generally flows well
Okay, I like the concept of a fictitious all-girl group to be used as a parody of the standard girl-band concept. I've mentioned the Spice Girls as one of the better examples of this, and that is what I would look to be focusing this one - looking at real-life examples of groups like this and tearing them to shreds with the obvious parallels between them and the Keebler Elves as you have created them.
I would suggest reading through wikipedia:Spice Girls, however I just read through that and there is a very definite influence in there by somebody who is wanting to keep that article as nice as possible. A few controversies plagued the real spice girls for a long time. Off the top of my head I can remember the shock and horror when images of Geri Halliwell naked floated to the surface, which at first it was denied that they were images of her, and then grudgingly accepted, and then she chose to "take the power back" by posing in playboy. There was the constant disagreements between Geri Halliwell and Victoria Beckham (née Adams) as Geri was considered the de facto leader of the group and Victoria Beckham was a pushy cow. There was the huge explosion of popularity with Victoria marrying David Beckham and the two of them becoming the UKs it couple. Plus the whole stupidity of the Girl power movement basically telling girls to become infantilised sex toys as way of life.
Another thing that springs to mind quickly is the movie Josie and the Pussycats and the way that the all girl band (and the boy band for that matter) being portrayed and stupid and vain. That is a perfect example of a parody of manufactured pop bands.
The good thing about wikipedia:Spice Girls though is that it gives a good idea of how this article can be set out, and also a few options on what you can do for some real life dramas that you can use in your own article.
How funny is it? Why is it funny? How can it be funnier?5
There are a few funny lines in there, but they are more coming from off the cuff one liners rather than having a solid framework upon which to base the remainder of the article. The entire article should be a huge joke at the expense of the manufactured girl band concept, and it is half-way there, but not quite having that final bit of pizzazz that would make it featurable.
As I said, the best line in there is "Who gives a hoot about fun? We're making heaps of cash off this stuff!" because it encapsulates the entire girl-band mentality in a fantastic little nutshell. I'd love to see more of this. I'd also like to see more mention of Famous Amos as the Simon Fuller / Simon Cowell / Mike Stock / Matt Aitken / Pete Waterman type of personality. The hardened cynical pop producer who knows what sells and can replace any of his girl bands at a moments notice with the next big thing, and often does.
In fact I'd like to see Famous Amos studios being a successful pop band engine that had produced artists in the past of a similar nature. (Not being an American I don't know all the cereal box characters that you have over there, but I've got an image of Snap, Crackle and Pop being the previous hit for the studios in a back-street boys type of way.)
How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting?4
The images are way too small, and they don't add anywhere near enough to the overall humour. I've done a quick google image search and I found this image which is a much larger and better defined image of Chocolate, and should be used for this, especially as we're using this as an example of his gay haircut. (Which is one of the low points humour-wise in the article, by the way. Maybe use this in a Jennifer Aniston influencing the bob as the haircut of choice world-wide for women.)
The first image of the band is a good one, but I would expect with any pop=band that the excitement is generated not by the performers, but by the flashing lights and fireworks. Maybe a graffiti style Keebler elves or simply Cookie is life across the background in vibrant neon type colours.
And of course I think if you extend the text then you should be adding more images to keep up with it all as well.
The article's overall quality - that indefinable something.7.5
I'm obviously terrible at calculating an average. I have given a 7.5 here as I think this has FA potential, but needs something more added to it to make it spectacular. If you asked me for a less numerical perspective I'd say overall it's good - a few high points and a few low points - but it has the potential to be fantastic.
Keep up the good work with it. Remember the golden rule - the more time you spend on something generally the better it will be. Don't stop here when there's so much more you can do.