Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/HowTo:Write a Progressive Rock Song
M'kay, so, this is my latest article. For the record, I love Prog music, for those of you who think my articles do nothing but "insult" things, so yeah. Ideally, someone familar with the genre review this, because if not my (intentionally) incessant name dropping and (intentionally) overly-broad sweeping generalizations may be lost to you. --Guildensternenstein 05:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Projectmayhem666-has stamped this article for review.
- Ah, danke. --Guildensternenstein 13:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
|Humour:||5||Excellent first paragraph, its not too jokey and flows like a real article which makes it all the better, it also made me chuckle. I would however change the image used though which I'll explain later.
Step one; the opposite method is quite good, could be a little funnier but it's probably just me, its quite good but a little more humour wouldnt go amiss. The critique method isn't really funny it seems to truthful and serious, the element of irony seems to be disipating and the humour isn't there, I'd probably try writing this into one sentence and removing the album examples to make it funny. However they work in the opposite method, but it doesn't need to flow. The concept method isn't funny either, it just seems like its a real article to me. Your over emphasis on the concept album doesn't really help. Same as before on the random imagery methhod.
Step two; is really the same as above, its drawn out and seems like a real article rather than the parody we're going for. I'm just going to say this is the same all the way through there is one funny line about speaking at a barely audible level, but that is, its the same in step 3 too.
The song itself is quite funny, especially if you imagine it being played to some Mars Volta. Could make it not about a prog song and something with a funny element.
|Concept:||7||I like the concept, however it does look like an actual article more than a piss take, with a bit more humour I believe this can be implemented much better. This has been done before (not prog rock) so I can't really say its original but the idea works.|
|Prose and formatting:||7||Never start a sentence with and, following a comma with and is fine (the oxford comma) but its not ok to follow a fullstop with it. A couple of errors but a spell and grammar check will fix them|
|Images:||5||There is a theme going on but they're not too funny, pehaps some edits and another picture would help. Just referencing random prog bands isn't really that funny to be honest, but its not too bad.|
|Miscellaneous:||6||Its an article with potential however its an article however the humour does seem a bit vacant throughout points in the article.|
|Final Score:||30||Its going to be a good article, I knows these things.|
|Reviewer:||--—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 16:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)|
Well I wanted this to be very "article-y," which is why I wrote it like that. And I'm very aware you're not suppose to start a sentence with "and," I do it because I can and like to. You see, by doing so, I subvert the conventions of standard written English; not unlike what Prog bands do, really. You see, that previous sentence was meant to be funny in the subtle, knowingly-needlessly-brainy way I wanted my article to read and be read as. Hence, the random name dropping, and the constant definition of what is and isn't "Progressive," (even though by doing so and constraining what is and isn't "Progressive" is in fact the most anti-Prog thin you can do), etc. It seems like you missed these things, because they weren't explicit enough. But yeah. Second opinion time.
Haha, sorry. I excel at sounding like a jerk when I really want to. Although I will put this up for a second opinion, just to see if it's criticized along similar lines, etc.
Oh, I can't thank you enough for the speedy review. I typically have to wait forever for one, haha. --Guildensternenstein 19:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I do a few reviews a day, I got what you were going for, I did in the other article too, its just it seemed too subtle to be funny. Good luck with the next review.--—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 19:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Cheers, dude. --Guildensternenstein 21:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)