Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Yes (band) 2nd submission

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 11:09, August 14, 2009 by Thehallway (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit Yes (band)

Right, the correct link this time I think. Thehallway 20:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed, apologies for all the confusion, 24 hours for me to get this done for you.--ChiefjusticeDS 21:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'l resubmit after some revision --Thehallway 11:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Humour: 3 OK, your humour is in need of quite a bit of work. The very first thing you need to do is read your way through HTBFANJS, carefully. Your article has good foundations but the humour that is built on top of them is in need of some serious attention. I'll break things down for you.

1) You need to start satirising the actual band and the actual things they did rather than making things up yourself. Remember that when people arrive at your article they want to read a humorous slant on a progressive rock band, not your made up version of events. For example if you arrive at an article about Darth Vader, you would not expect the first paragraph to be about how Darth Vader was conceived by Albanian sheep farmer Timmy 'wank face' Davis. Even if the idea is theoretically possible it is no match for the actual version of events. So try and make jokes about actual events rather than making them up.

2) My second point regards the accessibility of the article. From a rather swift preamble, most of which is made up or skewed so far from real events it is unrecognisable, you dive straight into the discography. Again the idea is right and you demonstrate you can do what is needed, but the execution is wrong. Consider someone who has only vaguely heard of the band arriving at your page, they would have no way of understanding your jokes. This needs to change, while the article will, by it's very nature, hold more for the reader who is well acquainted with the band and their work, your article shouldn't be a fans only club. Accessibility is the soul of good humour and if you take a look at any of the featured articles and you should find that, even in the articles where the subject matter is a complete mystery to you, that the author provides background and you can critique it anyway, in-jokes are just annoying if you don't know about them.

3) Don't make long lists, the humour aspect of this one is that it means there is very little prose to put any far reaching jokes into the article, as everything feels so separate. Extend the amount prose by introducing new sections and you will be surprised how easily new jokes come to you.

Concept: 5 Your concept is absolutely fine, and your tone is consistent, however, as is the issue throughout the article your execution of the tone is flawed. You write in the encyclopaedic tone in the article, and therefore you should try and parody the style used in the Wikipedia article. If you take a look at their article you will notice that profanity doesn't occur, you will also notice that opinions and words that address the reader or refer to the author do not exist. You should aim to emulate this style in your work. My recommendation would be to go back to the start and, using the Wikipedia article if you want, reconsider the tone. Take a look at the recently featured article, Clementine Atlee, for a good example of the tone you should try to aim for.
Prose and formatting: 3 Your prose are very limited for a start and feel untidy where they do appear, what you should do first is to proofread the article and get rid of any spelling and grammar errors, though this can wait until you make any revisions, but a proofread is very important. If you think that proofreading is boring or that you will not do it to an adequate level then you can easily request help from The Uncyclopedia Proofreading service by placing this template: {{Proofread}} onto the page. The lists should, ideally be fleshed out into prose as it is bad formatting as well as being tedious to read lots of lists. You should also work on removing all the red links from the article, if you want to make a joke using the links and there is no article to directly link to then either make it a non-sequitur or remove the links, as red links just make the article look and feel scruffy. Image formatting is OK, but you should try to space the images out so one is always on screen, this is just a guideline but you should try to follow it, or at least separate the images so they cover more of the article.
Images: 6 Your images are OK, but you should definitely work with them, as your humour and structure changes, make sure you don't neglect the images. Be harsh with yourself, and, if an image no longer fits in replace it with another one. Make sure any image compliments the text well and the article can flow with the images rather than the images be separate jokes completely. You should also revisit the captions if you keep all the current images and make sure they fit in with HTBFANJS as a good caption can make a mediocre image excellent.
Miscellaneous: 4 My overall grade of the article.
Final Score: 21 Your article has potential and with some hard work from you could really go the distance. You need to try and not be discouraged by negative feedback and go back and take another look at your article. If you need any help then you can ask me or another more experienced editor. If you want to ask for help or guidance or if you just have a comment about my review then feel free to let me know on my talk page. Good luck making any changes.
Reviewer: --ChiefjusticeDS 09:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects