Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/The Clash

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit The Clash

Moonzeppelin 22:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oi. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUNWotMRotMAotMVFHSKPEEINGHPBFF @ 18:38 Mar 20
Nopee PrIP'd!
Pee Review In Progress
Checkit bitches, this review is as good as peed on. I'm marking my effing territory. Said article is being reviewed by:
~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUNWotMRotMAotMVFHSKPEEINGHPBFF 

Humour: 4 The humor could use a lot of improvement. So far, I've seen all of the standard noob jokes: ridiculous timelines, random celebrity names, long lists, bad sex jokes, and random humor. I'll address all of these as best as I can with one ridiculously long acronym: HTBFANJS. But to sum it all up, most of this all adds up to be random humor. Randomness isn't welcome here, unfortunately. We have Illogicopedia for that. Uncyclopedia tends to be more about actual writing than just random humor. Try picking a clever angle and then making your jokes all revolve around this one angle. But claiming that the band is made up entirely of pirates and then making no further mention of it shows a lack of writing skill.
Concept: 2 Terrible concept overall. We have way too much bandcruft on this site as it is, and that's what this looks like. The whole concept here is just that you don't like the Clash. Neither do I. That's not funny, that's just dumb. As I mentioned before, you need to have an angle to work with. The truth is often funnier than lies. I'm sure you can find plenty of funny things in the band's history to justify an article other than "wow they're not really punk lolol"
Prose and formatting: 5 Your writing is nearly adequate, but it still needs a lot of fixing up. The tone seems a little blatant and obvious. I understand that an encyclopedic and neutral point of view isn't always necessary here, but sometimes being didactic can be much funnier than just being blunt with your own opinions.
Images: 2 One image, and it's in a template box. The image itself is rather poor, contributing nothing to the article. You need some good funny images here. When it comes to band articles, it's important to have images that separate it from other failures. To accomplish this, I would recommend having some well chopped images that either you do yourself or you get the folks down at UN:PIC to do for you. Whatever you decide to do, make sure you get at least two more images in here.
Miscellaneous: 2 I do have to use this little Miscellaneous section to give you a firm smack on the nose for the three pointless lists you've got there. They're just terrible filler. Ix-nay those god-awful eyesores for me, will ya?
Final Score: 15 I know, it's a rather short review compared to my others. But this article is dangerously close to VFD for being nothing more than listy bandcruft. It's really not that good. It needs a lot of work. Please read HTBFANJS and then have another go at this. For now, slap a {{construction}} tag on there so as to prevent it from showing up on VFD. You may want to try bringing it to your userspace and just doing a complete rewrite, since there's not much to salvage from this. I hope my review has been helpful. Good luck!
Reviewer: ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUNWotMRotMAotMVFHSKPEEINGHPBFF @ 19:20 Mar 20
Personal tools