From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 06:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I found the article a little bit wordy Quote: "In addition to music matching, Pandora operates the Music Genome Project, a research facility futilely hoping to prove that music preference is quantifiable into easily defined "genes", or vague non-sensical descriptions of an ineffable musical qualities." there's a very good chance that I'm just eneducated but I could not understand that at all, or is that what the joke is? In any case your article could do with a little bit of trimming I tend to zone out when I read things like "An apple is a compositional construct in which the confines of the disestablishmentarian anarchy is inept to the continuum insulin" using big words is good to some extent but just make sure it makes some sense and don't over do it.
- Thank you for the feedback - I am assuming you are unfamiliar with our formal pee review process? There is a template to fill out. Try clicking on the Review Now button below and editing the table. One suggestion I might make, however, is that we Pee Review only articles that manage to hold our perhaps short-ish attention spans (for which I do not chide you flippantly nor singularly - I myself deal with a modicum of ADHD and I have had visited upon me no small measure of frustration when faced with a plethora of the verbal emetic that is the sesquipidalian nonsense of others).
- and don't forget to sign your posts! --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 22:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
|Humour:||6||This reminds me a lot of your article on The Oscars, in that you basically go through and explain how bullshity |
The only advice I can give you is to make more of the "Pandora is evil" thing (and work in the mythological referrence), because 1) it's clever and 2) it's true.
|Concept:||8||I like the concept, which is basically you saying how shitty Pandora is. I guess you could make a little more about it being a literal "Pandora's Box," perhaps mention that in the opening paragraph, or something. Also, I don't know if the conversational tone works as well as it could, maybe play that up a bit, but yeah.|
|Prose and formatting:||7||Solid, but not spectacular. The |
|Images:||6||Actually sort of sub-par. The Pandora's box image is lame, the band pictures are adequate, and the eHarmony guy's photo is kind of cliched (you should have an eHarmony "couple" instead).|
|Miscellaneous:||8||Slightly better than average.|
|Final Score:||35||Just follow the above advice, basically.|
|Reviewer:||—Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 22:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)|