Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/The Misunderstood (3rd version)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 20:37, September 3, 2009 by PuppyOnTheRadio (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit The Misunderstood

After following all Pee review advice, we're back with a 3rd, more real-life version. Hope you guys enjoy the tunes too...

Funnybony 19:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel a little guilty about some comments I made regarding this article, and have re-read it since then and re-thought about it. So I'm going to review this, but I might be a touch over 24 hours. If anyone want's to jump in before I get my template on here, feel free. Pup t 22:12, 30/08/2009

Too late... Bwahahahahaha! Pup t 10:38, 31/08/2009

Bugger - I've exceeded 24 hours. I'll take the template back out and this is open - I'll try and get back to it though. I know, I suck! Pup t 22:38, 1/09/2009

User:POTR/Template:PEEing

Humour: 6.5 I'm going to go through this under the concept tab, as the these two areas are so intertwined in my mind (in relationship to this article) that I haven't been able to separate simply for the purpose of fitting them into the review template.
Concept: 6.5 So onto the humour/concept. Here is where we have two major problems with the article that are going to make you fall down a few times along the road here:
  1. It is a vanity piece. True, it doesn't fall into the category of vanity mentioned in UN:VAIN, but it is still an article about your own band. A band that you've worked hard on and proud of. And from what I've listened to so far, pretty fucking fantastic.
  2. It is a band article. And the pitfalls of a the band article are many and varied.

But on the plus side:

  1. It is a story laden with a beautiful pathos and irony, and I'm loving reading what I have so far of the novel
  2. The Karma fucked you up angle is a twist on the standard band bio, and starts to move this from a standard band piece to a comedic piece

So what does this mean for the remainder of what we're looking at here. Breaking it into smaller sections -

Intro

This is the strongest section in the article. And this is where we want the article to be at it's strongest, as this is what encourages people to continue reading. A few gags can probably be polished, but lolled at Pre-traumatic Stress Syndrome, and now want to use this one phrase as the basis for a separate article. (One day I'll write again.)

Greatest lost band of the 60s ?

Okay, ignoring the youtube vid, this is a good paragraph, but it is a single paragraph, with lead-in quotes. I have mentioned several times before that I'm not a fan of lead-in quotes at the start of an article, but don't mind them so much in a chapter lead-in (see layout). The introduction of a repetitive joke - “Rubbish!” ~ The Move's Roy Wood - I like, but for a repetitive joke to work you need three repetitions, and in this case as close to the original format as possible.

Recognition

No lols here, and that's a major issue. Intersperse these real accolades with humurous accolades maybe. 1) PEELENIUM: Greatest Songs of the 20th Century: 1966 - I Can Take You To The Sun by The Misunderstood[1], 2) "World's Greatest Dad Mug" given to the band by the Mozart appreciation society, 3) "I Can Take You... Keep in mind that Uncyc is predominantly a sature though. I don't know that these accolades, as fantastic as they are, really have a place in an uncyc article. Alternatively, go through a role reversal, similar to what you do with the Yradbirds in the See also (A section which I'll touch on briefly here. Although a good joke, it doesn't deserve it's own header. Bring that back to your main text.)

Musical Output

This is a short section that again only contains one joke. And I'm going to jump out of the section by section now to say a quick something about short sections.

A short section works sometimes, especially as this is read by Gen Y who have the attention span of a gnat, and Baby boomers, who can only concentrate when they remember their meds. (I had to get you back for that at some stage.) The problem is when it becomes too short that it is effectively the written equivalent of a one liner. A good ratio is a couple of gag lines per paragraph, and a couple of paragraphs per section.

Seven Dwarfs

This is to an extent a repetition of the information held in Musical Output, but comes at it from a different angle and has a different lol source. I would combine these tow paragraphs together. I'll come back to this later on.

Songs Copyright and Memorial in Heaven

I lolled here on the first part. The only thing I would change here is "Black Eyed peas" to "The Dead Kennedys". The second part was good, solid nonsense. Not my type of humour, but done well in this instance. Again I would be talking about combining to have Ongoing legacy or something to that.

Biography

The excerpt from the book is good, but the problem is that it is in a very different writing style from the rest, and it clashes. Somebody described the book to me as "psychedelic style." The other issue is a purely technical one - It is an excerpt from a copryright piece of work. It is cited, and it is a smaller passage from the larger whole, but it is still technically under copyright, and there are users on here who have an issue with what they suspect is plagiarism. (Although if you are the copyright owner...) Also it has been lifted out of the book and playing a significant part of this article, so there is an originality question mark.

I know the stupidity of saying "You wrote it there so you can't write it here. It's not an issue I see myself, but other's will. My concern really is the writing style.

I would be looking at doing a fair amount of chopping and changing. Shorten the intro by using parts of it in the main body of the article, and increase the size of the sections by reducing the number. Amend the vanity sections to inject a little more humour.

An alternate here is to write this a different way, and what I'd personally like to see, is this written by the lead singer and the writer of the book being himself, and explaining the shit that he went through with his band and the times as they were a-changing, but looking back on it with a wry mind, and appreciation of the fucking bitch that Karma was.

Prose and formatting: 6 A little listy in parts, but I've already spoken about that, and a little about the writing style. I've haven't proofread for spelling or grammar, because this does need a little work prior to being feature worthy, and I'm hoping you'll ask me to look at it again prior to it being nommed.

One thing that really irritates me in the way this is set out is the youtube videos. There are a few other mp3 files on here that are playable directly from the page (you'll find a few in UnTunes) and that doesn't disturb your layout quite so heavily. In fact they can then be added in a side box, so they can be heard, appreciated, but not damaging.

I also would like to see quotes done slightly differently. If you have a block quote then {{cquote|put your quote here}} is my preferred way to go. I also prefer the look of {{q2|here}} as opposed to the standard quote layout. But to be blunt, have the one-line quote itself in italics, and have the attribution below it as a double indent (::) and in bold. '''

Images: 5 Far too few images. Where are the shots of the legions of adoring fans? The band members on stage dripping with sweat from giving it 150% under the lights. Or the photos of the times, the protests, the war. Something that will get us Gen Xs to actually be able to put this into context. Where is John peel?
Miscellaneous: 8 Because I love this story, and I love the promise that this has. There is so much that you could do here, and although I was asked to contribute partially, I'm loathe to do that because it isn't my baby, and it isn't my style.

I'm reminded of a scene in A year and a half in the life of Metallica where Bob Rock is telling James Hetfield how to sing and make his stuff more interesting. I have a huge amount of respect for both of these guys, but the daggers Hetfield stares at Rock for daring to tell him how to do what he has been doing so well for so long is fantastic. I feel enough like Bob Rock at the moment without actually getting in there and singing on Hetfield's behalf.

I also would suggest you have a look at an article by Sog1970 The Popularity of War. It is an example of how to look at a horrible topic in an amzing and enlightening way, and a fantastic example of satire - a short definition of which could be short but poignant. Also in a similar vein but a different topic is Pious Christians Against Shellfish, one of Guildy's better pieces - if for nothing else the controversy it created amongst this community.

Final Score: 32 Rock on!
Reviewer: Pup t 20:37, 3/09/2009
Personal tools
projects