Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Punk

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Punk

Deadpeople 02:03, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

The previous page for Punk was rather atrocious, so I took it upon myself to rewrite it. I'm quite pleased with how it is now, but don't doubt at all that it could be funnier. I'm open to anything anyone has to say about it.

Humour: 9.0 Hello there! I'm pretty fucking excited to review this article. But then I remember it's punk, so I have to show no enthusiasm otherwise I'll be a square. Is that what you young kids say now? Square? Never mind, fuck it.

I like this article a lot. It is really funny. The main reason I think it works so well is because I can imagine some kid explaining punk music in exactly that way: swearing every second word and treating the reader like he/she is dumb as batshit. The swearing really does work for this article; it doesn't get boring or repetitive. Every fuck, shit and other expletive give this article a humourous impact. Kudos to you.

Another reason I find this article funny is because of the way you've actually managed to get some accurate infomation about punk in there without making it sound factual. That is quite difficult to do and it's not very often you see actual infomation being used in an article.

As far as making it funnier is concerned, I guess the only way to make it funnier than it already is is to maybe expand some section that, at this point, are a bit redundant. The weakest points of the article are the short sections: DIY, Nazism and Activism. Whilst they are funny sections, don't get me wrong, I feel that you can really make these sections substantial (especially the Nazi section).

Concept: 9.5 One of the more important music genres of the modern day. You really do need an article on Punk. I realise you weren't the first to attempt this, but your concept of this subject is original and very well executed.
Prose and formatting: 9.3 Very well done, technically. Whilst this article doesn't have an encyclopedic tone, it doesn't need one due to the subject matter and the effectiveness of the narrator's humour. There aren't too many red links, which is good to see, and you've kept listing to a minimum. I guess maybe the one thing that could aesthetically improve the article would be to maybe utilise the line break when it comes to the more lengthy sections: the intro, the definition and the conclusion. This just makes it that much easier to read smoothly.
Images: 10 Perfect images. I particularly liked the U2 image. That made me laugh out loud, it really did. The captions are all fitting, and all the images are relevant. Great stuff. I can't fault you here.
Miscellaneous: 9.5 Your average score.
Final Score: 47.3 A great article with only a few things needed to make it featured (in my opinion). Expand some of the shorter sections to make them just as important as the rest of the article, break up some of the larger sections of text, and I reckon you could be onto a winner here. Cheers.
Reviewer: --Username18 KUN FP 02:34, May 4, 2011 (UTC)


Deadpeople 01:37, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review! I agree with all of your comments about lengthening certain sections and making a few formatting adjustments. I really appreciate your input, I'll be spending some time making this into a more fully developed article.

Personal tools
projects