Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Tool (band)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 20:34, August 1, 2009 by ChiefjusticeDS (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit Tool (band)

They say it's hard to be funny about something you love, and even harder to write a funny band article... -- controversial Ape (lather) (Riot Porn) 22:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll be with you shortly. anyone else wishing to review some articles, don't do this one.... because I am. Do a review for Astronaut instead, Stairs would be eternally grateful, I'm sure.--ChiefjusticeDS 18:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I just got round to this, and noticed the VFH nom, I will review anyways, but will omit any VFH recommendations.--ChiefjusticeDS 20:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Humour: 9 OK, I like the humour in this one and you use humour by repetition to good effect throughout the article. The other jokes, generally stand up well on their own and are, in most cases, genuinely amusing. What I think your humour does need to do is, while employing repetition, find a couple more sources of humour. While I think the joke about pushing boundaries is a good one, you should make sure you find humour in a couple more places throughout the main body of the article, you demonstrate that you can do this with the lemon juice joke, it just needs to be more widespread, you will be onto a definite winner if you can replicate the calibre of that joke successfully. I say this only because the article holds far less for someone who does not find that joke particularly amusing. Nothing much else to say on this one.
Concept: 8 Your concept is good and I think your tone is a good and underused one for this type of article. However, what is hurting your score is a lack of tonal clarity. I found myself midway through the article before I knew where you were coming from with this one, perhaps this say more about me than your article but the point stands nonetheless. If you take a look at other article written in the first person in this style, the preamble tends to identify the narrator with some clarity rather than simply in passing. This isn't much of a criticism granted, but clarity is often everything (well, OK, in my world it is), and a simple sentence could solve this problem relatively swiftly.
Prose and formatting: 9 Your prose are pretty good and show some signs of having been checked over. Regardless I located a couple of errors on my first read through, so a quick proofread to get rid of these could only be a positive improvement. Your image formatting and everything else is absolutely fine, that one proofread will add the final polish to the article, which lacks any serious problems in this regard. My only other suggestion would be to consider increasing the size of the final image, this and the grammar issues are all that prevent you scoring 10 for this section.
Images: 10 The images are fine and perfectly relevant to the article, nothing really to be changed besides the formatting change above, your captions are properly written and compliment or explain the images as they should, no complaints from me on this one.
Miscellaneous: 9 My overall grade of the article.
Final Score: 45 Definitely a VFH contender, in fact I will go over there now and vote, no real problems as far as I can see, the article was enjoyable and the only changes I can recommend are cosmetic, even without sorting these, this is still front page material. Well done.
Reviewer: --ChiefjusticeDS 20:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects