Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Band geeks

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Band geeks

GlitchMaster 18:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	3	There was little in this article that I found funny. Lists are seldom humourous. Long lists even less so. This article has four of them! 'You know you're a band geek when ...' is unfunny to the point of cliche. It would survive here if any of the reasons given were even slightly witty. The article is just too large for the amount of humour involved. I firmly believe that every article has the potential to be funny, and there are opportunities for some laughs here. It could perhaps be better if you dealt with one band geek rather than an entire collection.
Concept:	4	I believe the concept is not strong enough to warrant its own article. It could be vastly truncated and included in Geeks. There's a section at the end of the article that deals with Musical instruments which is kind of swerving away from the title of Band Geeks.
Prose and formatting:	3	That line "(Band geeks)are notable for many things which will be discussed in better detail later." annoyed me. Why later? Why not now? Why even include the line? This smacks of padding out and fobbing the reader off. And another line "The Stereotypical Band Geek - this is your stereotypical band geek ... " is lazy and an example of why the entire article, if it can be saved, needs to be proofed. A couple of the jokes are repeated (marching in time, etc)
Images:	1	One image that had absolutely nothing to do with the article's subject. Surely a picture of a band geek would add humour to the article?
Miscellaneous:	2.8	I can only suggest that this article be condensed into a couple of paragraphs and be added as part of the 'Geeks' article.
Final Score:	13.8	I did not enjoy reading this article, and I think it shows. I don't like having to give a low score review, as I hate making any fellow writers feel bad knowing that time has been spent by them working on an article. I do prefer honesty and Peeing is all about improving articles and as I see from its long history, it is the product of many authors, so I am confident that I am not hurting the feelings of the requestee too much. And it helps to remember that this review is only the opinion of one person.
Reviewer:	Geoffprickett 07:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)