Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Progressive Metal (revised)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Here it is! New and improved!
188.8.131.52 22:08, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
- I sort of said I'd do this. So I guess I'll review this. Shortly, mon. Shortly. 05:37, 31 March 2011
|From what I can tell, most, if not all, of what Flamingo said in his earlier review still stands, as you really haven't done all that much to the overall piece in the meantime, and it needs a fair bit more. As a result, a lot of this may come across as not just a review, but as review - Flamingo makes rather good points, and you will want to address more of them, and I may well repeat a lot of them. I won't be looking too closely, though. Maybe it'll mean more that way, if we happen to agree. Maybe not.|
The idea, the angle, the grand funny of the article...
|So what is the article, then? What's it really about, how does it approach this... progressive metal, and how does it make it funny? What's your angle, man? All you really seem to do is say that it is a bunch of things, and that really doesn't work. You need a central concept to tie it all together, something that connects each bit. As it is, you have some apparently random information, what it is, what it consists of, where and whom it came from, the structures - these are generally good things to have, but what are you really saying with them? What does Rush coming from Rush Limbaugh actually have to do with what you introduce, the notion of it apparently being not much of anything, just rather blah music?
Not much of a notion, that, though fortunately you go in other directions. Unfortunately, you don't stick with any of them. Pick something, a way of approaching the topic that introduces some sort of twist, perhaps, though that it is hardly your only option. Think about what you have, and read through some of our featured articles - you may be able to get ideas that way. And once you do, introduce it in the introduction, and work with it through the entire piece. After the introduction, history is indeed a good place to start, but make it fit that introduction - lay out how it go to be in whatever state you introduce, that kind of thing. It's the backstory. And from there, just... say more about how it is, as you've done, but go more into it, use details that would make the piece for those that know them, and make it fit, else it could disrupt the flow of the thing.
The implementation, how funny the article comes out...
|This would be a lot funnier if you had some sort of main idea, as well as more readable in general. That said, here's the piece by piece, since the overall ain't never a full picture. Or is it?
Start off saying what it is, which is always useful, and gives some overview and information, which may or may not be accurate, but which is also good... but it's not terribly funny, either. Introduce your idea, here. Set the stage, draw in your reader, and get into what you, as the writer and the presenter, are actually doing with the subject. I know this can't be terribly helpful, but you need to add jokes, the better if they don't seem like jokes... if you do indeed have some, mind, I can't tell, so that might be a sign they need work.
Rush Limbaugh? Actually, this could well work - it's a stretch and verges on absurd, but if you can make it really believable that the names are more than just coincidental, and refer back to this in later sections as established fact, I don't necessarily see a problem with it. The problem is that it doesn't actually make sense - if I'm counting right, he was only 17 when Rush formed, and from completely the wrong region. Perhaps explain this discrepancy, somehow? Say he ran away to Canada or something, rebellious teenager from his family's conservatism...
Still not really funny, though. Trying to imitate the prog rock folks, are they? Mon, are you trying to do the same, here, trying to imitate the prog rock article? Seems like, from the later sections, which makes this ironic in a not so good way, but I'll get to that later. Eh, but saying you lied and immediately contradicting yourself just breaks the credibility of the article, and why would he be drug addicted? Is that funny? Some people believe that and some don't, but that's politics.
The notion, however, of a new generation listening to his album and becoming inspired, however, is good. Could use more - build off and go into detail with the fallacious interpretations to mock how wrong they were, might help.
Like you said, eh? but why repeat if you already said it? A bunch of stuff it contains isn't really funny in the first place - it's just a list of stuff it contains. In the second place more about each bit might help, or some point being made by listing those bits again... but there doesn't appear to be one.
As for the example epic, well... why is that there? I may well be missing something, but it seems like it's just a bad song you wrote to illustrate... how bad they are? And you speak to the reader saying you expect them to read it NOW? Saying that is more likely to cause a reader to not read it. Mind, I did read it, but it really does just seem... random. And bad in general, for that matter. If that's your only point, pointing out how bad it is and talking more about how bad it is, and, oh, did I mention it was bad? would probably be both faster and easier on the readers (if they even read it) than an entire song.
If, on the other hand, you really are following the format of the prog rock, as you seem to be well... that's actually not such a good idea. Articles that take a major approach to things pull them off, but typically copies wind up just that - copies. Rarely as good as the original. That can be a point, that prog metal ain't as good as prog rock, but don't make it by making the article not as good. Not that the prog rock article is currently in a terribly good state; looks like it's had a fair bit of stupid added to it in the past few years... giant lists, excess of quotes, mussied tabulature... again, not the best example to go off.
But the song in the other, it was saying something about the subject itself - the reason it was there was clear; it was both illustrating what it was talking about as it was talking about it, in the song. This doesn't seem to do any such thing.
Diseases for listening to Prog Metal
That section title doesn't make any sense. Do you mean Diseases resultant from listening to it? But why would diseases result from listening to music? And what has this to do with your main point? It just seems random...
No actual conclusion, then? Although usually conclusions don't need it stated that they are conclusions. Not that this is a conclusion, really.
Again, you're basically just copying the prog rock article with this. It was funny the first time... I suppose. Not really now. There's just a mass of tabulature, and quite frankly, it means nothing to me, so I can't even comment on how well it works. Although why does the guitarist kill itself?
Copies don't work. Don't do it; come up with something new and it will impact your audience much more effectively.
Ooo... so you're trying to be self-referential here, are you? The mimicking the form of the other article was intentional, was it? Problem with that, is it assumes readers have read the other article... most folks won't have. And anyhow, asking people not to delete an article in an article just isn't funny. It happens too often.
This doesn't really add anything, but see alsos rarely do. May want to just incorporate the links into the thing itself, although you don't have to... nobody expects much of see alsos, anyhow.
|Prose and formatting |
Appearance, flow, overall presentation...
|Is this a conversation, a progressive article, of sorts? Except that doesn't really work; you're just making the piece seem amateurish, and not in a way that helps it. Some articles use that sort of thing as part of their jokes, but that requires that who is speaking be clear, and that it be consistent. A fan, a not fan, someone related, and why is it speaking, and what's so ironic about it? It's usually safer to remain professional, treat it as an article that is an article, but whatever you do, stick to it. Remain consistent. It's rather jumpy and disordered as it is...
It also doesn't flow very well. Your ideas and words both need to flow more - what makes sense after the previous things? What makes it read well? It doesn't get terribly choppy anywhere, which is good. But you also need more of an introduction, as well as the ideas and whatnot that follow to logically make sense coming after that, and to flow into whatever concludes the article... which you do need something. Not a formal conclusion, but something to bring it all together or throw it all apart, or something... some strong note on which to end it.
Stuff in the order that a skim-though causes it to occur to me:
The graphics themselves, as well as their humour and relevance...
|Although they have to be good images for bigger to really help. These... not so much.
You have two images, both of which are very tiny and not particularly high quality, and neither of which are funny. They do, however, fit their sections, so there is some hope for you. The first one... I don't get it. It's not a good image, so I'm not really sure what's going on, and the caption doesn't help, either. It's the cover... okay. So? Make a joke or something. Explain why it's remarkable, tie it in more to why it as opposed to something else is being displayed, there.
The second, however... exploding head. If I had a wooden nickel for every time I've seen that used... I'd have a lot of wooden nickels. I mean, it's overused, and it's not particularly good, to boot. Generic, the term is. Can you not find, or if need be, request something more appropriate and funny about the thing itself?
You want images that not only illustrate what you're talking about, however, but also fit the funny of the piece, and add to it as well, either making additional jokes, supporting existing ones, or even just making the piece look more visually appealing. These fail on the latter ends. You also usually want an image to illustrate the lead - some sort of general prog metal image to look interesting and whatnot. Or just steal one off Wikipedia; it has some nice general images on its article.
|Final score |
06:14, 3 April 2011
|This is an opinion, nothing more... but people are made of opinions, so ignoring them doesn't always help matters. Seriously, some of this you need to heed - you need some sort of main notion, and you need to make it more readable to the random passerby. Keep working on this, heed the Flamingo as well (if we agreed upon something, that's generally a good sign you need to work on it, but he's pretty brilliant in general, so...) and... er... yeah. Good luck to you. Feel free to stop by my talkpage if you have any questions or whatnot.|