Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Bad Religion
Bad Religion[edit source]
Legolas11 11:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Bad Religion
Hmm, I'll see if I can get to this later. Orian57 Talk 
13:16 14 August 2009
| Humour: | 4 | This wasn’t as bad as I was expecting, if I’m honest. You did have some good lines in there and you even built upon them. The problem was that the vast majority of the article consisted of completely random “name dropping”. Mentioning Jesus and Mr T and batman ect… just for the sake of it, isn’t funny. I can see that you made the effort by mentioning how clichéd Mr T is, but then that just felt self-conscious which is just as bad.
Firstly you should really read HTBFANJS, guidelines on being funny. Then in relation to band articles in particular you may want to read HowTo:Write A Funny Band Article, bear in mind it isn’t being entirely serious, but there is still some good advice in there. |
| Concept: | 2 | What you need is an actual concept. Them being a Christian rock band is as good a place to start as any (it’s a tad obvious but it could work). Have that as the base and build upon that. Things like parodying the album names were good, and are a good way of building on a concept such as them being a Christian rock band. If you want to further that concept you can try and incorporate the sort of “we’re cool aren’t we, mommy?” awkwardness that Christians tend to have when they’re trying to relate to younger generations. |
| Prose and formatting: | 5 | I can’t complain too much here, you generally had sentences that made sense and the formatting was fine. The problem was that you didn’t introduce your jokes enough, as I mentioned in Humour section (I feel it’s also somewhat a prose issue).
Big ugly templates like you had for the discography section, should really be avoided. In fact discography sections should be avoided because they create lists which, amongst other things, are inherently repetitive (repetitive in a bad, boring sort of way). Like with discography, trivia is something that should be avoided, especially here as you’ve said as much in the rest of the article. |
| Images: | 5 | For the most part they were relevant to what you said in the article, and that’s usually a good thing. Except here, Pictures are usually the first thing people notice about the article as they give a quick scroll through to test for length and such. Here they’ll see some black elf thing you’re calling Obama, Batman, and a something without a caption. It may end up being off putting.
Try having an image of the bands first album at the top, and use that as your lead, just to confirm to people that they’ll be reading about Bad Religion. |
| Miscellaneous: | 4 | (Averaged by wizard) |
| Final Score: | 20 | Generally it’s just best to avoid utter randomness. If this is your style you may want to check out Illogicopedia, where they appear to like that sort of thing.
If you’d like to thank/insult/ask me about any of this please visit my talk page. |
| Reviewer: | Orian57 Talk 23:19 15 August 2009
| |