Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Izzy Stradlin
|
A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article is being reviewed by: UU - natter  (While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead). (Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole). |
OK, I want this one off the queue, so I'll give it the treatment. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 10:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Right, first comment: create the article, put the {{PeeReview}} tag on it to keep it from deletion until the review's been done, then just link to it from the review request. Don't put the article text on the review page!
OK, now for the review itself...
| Humour: | 3 | Ah. Well what you have here, my friend, is Bandcruft. Y'see, unfortunately we see articles like this a lot round here. And many of them get deleted. This is not intended to be a personal attack, I'm just telling you how it is. See HowTo:Write A Funny Band Article for an explanation of many of the problems you face here. Also take a look at HTBFANJS - this article is very random, which doesn't equate to humour around here - although there are other wikis that are fine with such things. |
| Concept: | 3 | Articles about real people are welcome here, if they have a coherent idea and are well written. Unfortunately, this is just kinda random, with the usual fan-centric stuff. |
| Prose and formatting: | 4 | OK, the formatting is fine, so points for that. But the writing is littered with typos, and rambling instead of flowing. And there's the section of album tracklistings at the end: see UN:LIST for several reasons why lists are a bad idea. |
| Images: | 5 | OK, there are several, and they're relevant. Points there. And none of them are horrendous MS Paint ones, or obvious hate pics, so more points there. But they're not funny or adding anything to the article either. And is it just me, or does he look like Richie Sambora on one of them? |
| Miscellaneous: | 3.8 | Averaged per what I do when I have no other idea what to put in here. |
| Final Score: | 18.8 | OK, that's not a good score, I can't disguise that. Your problem here is you've picked a difficult topic to make work - good band articles are as rare as new Guns 'n' Roses albums. The problems tend to include: lots of references that only fans of the band could ever understand, random shit about how the individual concerned is either god or the biggest loser on earth (often in the same article) and some references to other bands and how much they also suck. And unfortunately, you've fallen into a few of those traps here. I've made a few comments below, but my advice to you really is to leave this and try starting another article about something else - something you have less connection to, so you can avoid these traps and try to write something properly funny instead. |
| Reviewer: | --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 11:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | |
Comments:
OK, if you want to save this, remove the discography completely, rework it so it's more consistent, get rid of the more blatant "fan only" references, read this - please read it - and try to remove any of your personal opinion from it. Have a look at our best articles as well (and see how few band related articles are on it - that's what you're up aginst!) and see if any of them give you more ideas.
Finally, if you're serious about making a good uncyclopedia article out of this, give me a shout and I'll try to give you some more advice, or nip through it and make a few changes to try and give you a few ideas.
As always, this is only my opinion, others are available, and good luck! --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 11:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)