Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Matthew Good

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Matthew Good

An article on Matthew Good and the Matthew Good Band, a Canadian rock group. This article might be a little too close to the truth, but maybe running it through here might be able to change that a little. -- SmallbeerSpillin DylanSmallbeerTALKSmallbeerEDITSSmallbeer201:06, Jan 22

UUtea A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article
is being reviewed by:
UU - natter UU Manhole
(While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead).
(Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole).

OK, I'll have a look. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 14:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Humour: 4 OK, here we go: It's a cut above the usual bandcruft because it's not just random and hate-filled, but it's still not that funny. The problem here is that band articles tend not to be funny - people can't seem to steer clear enough of their own opinion on the bands to write a decent article, and you've fallen into a few of the usual traps here. I have refrained from going anywhere near the article on the band I hate the most for this very reason. Plus, there's Emo references and namedropping, although I didn't detect and gay jokes, so that's a blessing!
Concept: 4 Here's part of the problem: you've done what most people do: basically try to write a biog of the guy, and point out that he's an asshole. It's not really laugh out loud material unless done extremely well. And you don't have many other ideas to work with, which leaves you hamstrung. You've got the discography list sporked from Wikipedia, which is very rarely a good sign - and oh, you've linked almost all of it to Nobody Cares. Hmm. You need to consider your approach carefully if you want to make it a decent article.
Prose and formatting: 7.5 Well, the writing's fine enough, and I can't really fault your formatting. I think the structure doesn't inspire confidence though - one chunky section, a couple of other slim sections and a list suggests you were short of ideas and struggled to pad it out.
Images: 4 About the right number for the length of article, but not brilliant. And the caption of the second one doesn't add anything. The second one needs a good caption to work, the first probably needs to have an indirect explanation in the text, something about the band's innovative "postman" stage outfits, perhaps, but funnier.
Miscellaneous: 4.9 Averaged.
Final Score: 24.4 Well it's not the dire bandcruft article it could have been, and that I was expecting. It would probably survive as a middling article around here. However, if you want it to shine, you have to figure out a way to avoid the traps I've mentioned above, and also open it up a bit more to those who've never heard of the guy. The lack of band related articles here shows you what you're up against.
Reviewer: --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 14:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, start by reading this: HowTo:Write A Funny Band Article. I'm not kidding, it sums up the problems you face quite well. If you want to write a genuinely good article (as opposed to a better than usual band article, which is what this currently is), you have to really work at it, and avoid these pitfalls. It's tricky to do well, although as always, HTBFANJS should be of some help.

Basically, I do wish you luck: a good band article is a very hard thing to pull off, and I'd like to see a few around here, just to show it can be done. However, you will have to think carefully about your approach, and try to find a different spin on the task that avoids as many of the classic bandcruft pitfalls as possible.

And as always, this is only my opinion - others are available. Hope I helped! --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 14:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal tools