Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Joy Division

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Joy Division

Rewrite. It probably helps if you're familiar with the band's legacy and output. Also, I know the rule... I'll get around to reviewing an article some time tonight.-- Phlegm Leoispotter * (garble! jank!) 00:38, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'm fed up of doing stuff from the bottom of the queue, I'm doing this. --Black Flamingo 10:18, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Humour:	6	Ok, I've taken the day off work due to sickness so I guess I should use that time do a review. I'm a bit of a fan of Joy Division myself, by the way, so I read your article with great interest. And for the first few paragraphs, I thought you'd done a really great job with it. The whole "saying the opposite of what's true" thing is very difficult to get right, but I think the parts where you talk about them being a cheery, radio-friendly pop group have just enough sarcasm and wit to be successful. The only thing I can foresee going wrong here is that people are simply not going to get it. If you haven't heard of Joy Division, for instance, you probably wouldn't get the joke. And let's face it, that demographic likely makes up a significant portion of our readership. You do already hit upon something that I think could help here though, where you link "dancing ability" to "epilepsy" (that got a few chuckles out of me, by the way). I think you should treat all your sarcasm this way, i.e. put the truth in the links. So if you say "happy", link it to "depressing", or if you say "bubblegum pop", link it to "miserable new wave music", or a similar page that actually exists. These are just some examples, have a play around and see what you can do here. Whatever the case, I definitely think it will help those readers who've never heard the band. By the time we get to the Well Known Pleasures and Closer section, however, I think the article starts to lose its way a little. While I agree with your choice to move on from the "portraying them as a happy band" idea, I'm not sure the road you go down is the right one. The humour gets a tad sillier and also more random, and loses the biting satirical edge it had when you began. Jokes about critics who don't exist and hallucinations of Satan don't really work in here, in my opinion. I would strongly recommend you keep up the opposite theme, but obviously try to satirise another aspect of the band rather than how melancholy their music is, because to just repeat that (as I'm sure you're aware) would be a bit redundant. So, ideas... At the beginning of this section you actually begin doing exactly what I've already advised, where you talk about their "rich and layered production". I thought this was pretty funny too, and would be a good area to expand upon if possible. Try, perhaps, to make this whole section an ironic attack on how amateurish and minimalistic their sound was, very much like you do in the first two paragraphs with how downbeat they were. Talk about the stress and strain of the recording sessions, in which Curtis would practically live in the studio, working 16 hour days and maniacally overdubbing dozens of guitar parts and arranging backing scores for absurdly large string sections. Just see what you can do along these lines, keep it focussed, and keep the same approach all the way through. Following this, the Breakup and Aftermath section is way too silly. Like I say above, you should have a go of satirising other aspect of Joy Division, whether it's their sound, their persona etc. Key things to think about here are Curtis' severe depression and illness - perhaps you could make him out to be the picture of good health and in fact rather cheerful? Then obviously there's the suicide, I kind of like what you've got here about him living a long, happy life, you should probably stick with that as your core idea but don't be quite so silly. Why not do something like Joy Division stayed together for many years? You could also try making jokes about how prolific they were(n't), you already touch on this but I thought it was another good idea. I definitely think that saying the opposite of what's true is the best thing you do here, and would really like to see the back of anything that doesn't fit in with this. And also, don't forget my comments about putting the truth in the links, I really think this could help. So that pretty much wraps up my section-by-section review of humour and concept. I do have a couple of other sidenotes though, the first being that you should try and go as deep as possible with this concept. I feel it can go a lot further than what you've got so far, even in the good bits at the beginning. Just try to incorporate every aspect of the band into this treatment. Like, where did they get their name from in this version? If you want an example of another article that takes a vaguely similar approach, I would read this. It's one of my favourites on the site and really goes to town on developing its melded concept. Try to have as much depth as that, if possible (I know Joy Division weren't really around that long, but just see how far you can go). I would also revise the discography, as it's basically just a list. I would suggest revising the album titles so they fit in with the opposites concept, and then working them into the prose. Prose is always much better than lists, it will allow you to go into a lot more depth and get to grips with what's really funny here. Finally, I would lose the "Whoops!" joke, they're just a bit tired and I've seen this particular joke told dozens of times on other band articles.
Concept:	7	Not much else to say here really since I linked it with humour above. For your score though, I'm going to go with 7, because I think you've got a decent idea that just hasn't been as developed as I would have liked. It also needs to run consistently throughout the whole article. Otherwise, good work here.
Prose and formatting:	7	Interestingly, your prose follows the same kind of pattern as your humour. It starts off near enough perfect but gets a little less focussed in the last few sections. In the intro and the first section, I didn't really find any faults with your prose, spelling or grammar, but it gets worse as it goes on. In the last section, for example, you start going on and on about things that aren't really that funny. The big list of "TOTP totty", for instance, gets a bit hard to follow as there's too much in there to take in without going back on yourself. The last two paragraphs in here also read pretty much like a list, just not in bullet-points. You just sort of go from one disjointed point to the next, like: "This is what happened to Peter Hook. This is what happened to Bernard Sumner. This is etc etc." Try not to skim over things. Don't rush, take your time to explain everything. The good thing about going into more detail is you'll usually find more jokes you can make about a subject too.
Images:	4	Ok, you definitely need a few more images. While the first one is fine, it doesn't really do a lot for the humour. I wasn't really a fan of the second one at all. Images that portray them the way you describe them would be great, although I appreciate how difficult that would be. The guys over at UN:PIC might be able to help you there though. Or maybe some made up album/single covers? Thinking again about those damn American readers, another idea could be to put the truth in the images. So you could have these really drab, black and white photos of the band, all looking miserable and ill, but then put a caption in that describes them as being "happy-go-lucky", for example, like you do in the text. This could be quite funny. You could even go so far as having an image of Curtis' grave with a caption saying "Curtis still plays with the band to this day" to really drive the point home and spell it out for the ignorant readers. Just an idea, but have a think about it.
Miscellaneous:	6	My gut feeling.
Final Score:	30	So all in all a pretty decent article. The beginning is very strong, and if you'd kept that up throughout the whole thing I definitely would have considered nomming it for feature. So have a think about what I've said, mainly the suggestions to strengthen the "opposite" concept. Also try to get rid of some of the sillier parts towards the end as I really didn't think much of them. Also, I just noticed you're one of the few users to submit to pee review and actually review someone else's article in return, so thanks for that. If there's anything I've said here that you want me to explain better, or if you want my opinion on anything I might have missed, please let me know and I'll try to help. I hope the review is ok.
Reviewer:	--Black Flamingo 11:32, November 4, 2010 (UTC)