Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Timbaland

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 06:31, April 27, 2011 by Fnoodle (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit Timbaland

Megaman2000 11:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

UUtea A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article
is being reviewed by:
UU - natter UU Manhole
(While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead).
(Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole).

I'm on it. --UU - natter UU Manhole 15:30, Dec 8

Humour: 2 OK, that's a bad start, right? Problem we have here is that this falls squarely into many of classic music article pitfalls - the author doesn't like the music, so it's basically little more than a rant about the shitness of the artist in question. We have a lot of articles like this, and if you just wanted to create another one, congratulations, mission accomplished!

On the other hand, if you want to write an article that rises above that to be an example of the best Uncyclopedia has to offer, then you're a way off that, because whether or not I agree with your opinions on Timbaland's music, the article isn't really funny. Here are a few of the more obvious problems with the article:

  • It's just a bunch of insults - either continually insulting Timbaland himself, or the artists he works with. Now I may not be huge fans of those artists myself, but just insulting them isn't funny in and of itself.
  • You don't really have many ideas beyond "he uses a lot of samples and works with a lot of other people", yet you stretch it out for quite a long article.
  • It's pretty random - and by that I mean you add names and references for no reason, with no possible connection to Timbaland. This doesn't bring the funny - it's just random, if you don't have some kind of explanation. A collaboration between Timbaland and Cliff Richard could be funny if you approach it the right way, and explain it in an amusing fashion, but just putting two unconnected names together is not funny.
  • It's kinda listy. UN:LIST is a quick summary of the way we view lists on Uncyc - you have several. Discographies, tracklistings etc are superfluous and can easily be stripped out.

There are plenty more, but that's a starting point. I suggest you read HowTo:Write A Funny Band Article, an article all about the mistakes made by so many music articles, and try to spot how many you've made. Then see what you can do about it. HTBFANJS is another good thing to read - it's a collection of writing tips that can help you if you want to write a funnier, less random article.

Finally, a look at UN:BEST is a good idea too - looking over our featured articles shows you the kind of thing we're aiming for. See how there aren't that many music articles? That's because they all do the same thing: "OMG this guy is teh suxxors!" Megadeth is a rare decent example, because it takes a much wittier look at the band, instead of being either fanboy praise or outright hatred. It's also a little more subtle at pointing out certain hypocrisies of the band. Come up with a new idea, or a different approach. Which leads me on to the concept section.

Concept: 2 You don't really have much of a concept, beyond slagging off Timbaland for his pedestrian beats, plagiarism and so forth. Now, a good running gag can work well in an article, but not when it's just basically saying "he rips off other people's songs" a lot. You need to be more subtle. Hint at him ripping other songs off. Allusion is better than outright blatancy.

The main thing you need though, is a clear idea of how you're going to approach the article. You can do the autobiographical approach fine enough, but you need to have a coherent thread to it, and a bit more meat to your idea than what you currently have on display.

Prose and formatting: 4 It's very random, bordering on incoherent in places, and there is a liberal sprinkling of typos throughout. If you use Firefox, try downloading a spellchecker tool for it. If you don't, try using Firefox and download a spellchecker tool for it. Formatting's fine though, no problems there.
Images: 4 4 of them. Of which 1 is definitely relevant, 1 is relevant but really badly done, 1 is vaguely relevant (Disneyland map with Timba-land over the top? I suppose it fits with the plagarism theme), and one is pointless. Spend a little more time on it - even if you just get a couple more pics of the man himself, it's not hard to find pics of him.
Miscellaneous: 3 Averaged.
Final Score: 15 Rightyho, what we have here at the moment is your typical artist article. It'll survive in this form with the odd bit of vandalism, and it'll go nowhere very fast. It's just concerned with insulting Timbaland instead of having anything really funny to say, and as such it'll not get anywhere near the front page. It can be turned around, Megadeth is proof of that, and it has been done other times (I'm just way too lazy to track 'em down). So if you really do want to make this work, it can be done. Step back, take a fresh look, read the links I've given you, think about how you're going to approach it, and get going!

Finally, please remember, this is only my opinion, others are available. And good luck! --UU - natter UU Manhole 16:30, Dec 8

Reviewer: --UU - natter UU Manhole 16:30, Dec 8
Personal tools
projects