Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/The Pointlessness (band)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
I need some advise to complete this one. Any ideas are welcome.
If it can be of any help, this is where I got my inspiration.
-Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 18:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
|Humour:||2||Jeez, I haven't done a Pee Review in quite some time. Anyway, this article is...utterly pointless. In every single way. Humanly imaginable.
|Concept:||2||I think writing an article about an occurance/in joke that happened on a forum has a maximum target audience of about six people, most of which probably don't find this particularly amusing either.|
|Prose and formatting:||5||You do write fairly well (even if you've only actually written what amounts to one full paragraph), and the article is organized according to major concepts, so you do comparitively well here.|
|Images:||1||You have. A picture. Of a black square.|
|Miscellaneous:||2||An average-ish. I'm sorry, but this was terrible, but...|
|Final Score:||12||...this does actually have a lot of potential. No, really, I'm serious. If you rewrite this entire thing but keeping the general concept (a "pointless" band) you could write a really excellent satire on a particular genre of music you don't particularly care for (EMO, Punk, perferably something already apathetic) with "The Pointlessness" being an archetype of that genre. That strikes me as a much better idea than writing about some forum joke.|
|Reviewer:||--Guildensternenstein 05:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)|
- Slight remark here: It was inspired by the forum topic, not about it. Also, I've tried to combine gothic and metal and put in some gay. If you think it'd be better without the gay bit, please let me know. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 08:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in here, but this review assumes that the article is already finished and offers no suggestions on how to complete it in any of the areas, other than saying it's clearly possible. --
11:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- That appears to be the case. I'll ask for another review, but first I might try the work on the article some more. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 12:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well I did actually say how I thought the article would be improved in the final comments section; i.e. you re-writing basically everything keeping only the most basic concept. You're perfectly entitled to seek additional opinions, however, and I do admit my review was rather light. --Guildensternenstein 18:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)