Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Jamiroquai

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Jamiroquai

My first and only article is Jamiroquai. Please could someone help me edit links or put some pictures that has to do with my article. I just have no time to edit it. I don't wont that this humorous article just die, since i was planning to write it since last year. Now I finally wrote it, i just need to set some links since i don't know how to make them, nor do i know how to edit pictures in photoshop.

Read the article and than you'll know why i don't want it to die. THANKS

Pedalla 12:09, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, reviewing time. 1234 ~ 21:03, 25 March 2011

Prose and formatting:	4	Alright, I'll start here, as you've expressed an interest in this... and it also kind of needs it. Sorry about the {{ugly}}, by the way. I've been going through and fixing some bits, formatting in general, adding some links (though only on the first half), an image for an example - you don't need to make your own; even stealing them from wikipedia, or pulling images off other articles or off google searches can work. First thing that strikes me is your overall tone - who is the speaker? Why are they speaking? Is this supposed to read as a normal encyclopedia article, or a school report, or a random blog, or something else? It doesn't matter terribly what, so long as it makes sense, there is a reason for that that conceptually makes sense, and so long as you stick to it. The fact that I can't entirely tell isn't a good sign at this stage, but it can be resolved if you go through and make it more consistent. As it is, it seems to be a guy too close to the subject trying to write a normal encyclopedia article and not really succeeding, which is something that can work quite well if you can pull it off. But you need to be more subtle, if that is indeed the case - if you can make it more like a normal Wikipedia article in structure and presentation, but full of bias and personal experience and even random comments that only someone who was there would include. The current random comments, the parenthesised bits, however, are a little too random - I've been moving some of them to footnotes, which is one way to keep them from disrupting the main flow, but things like saying to (Note the rhymes)... it's too blatant, doesn't help the tone, and doesn't have any reason according to the article itself why that is actually explicitly said. Why would you speaker be saying any of this? If there is a why and you can get that across, that will help immensely. But parentheses and footnotes are both rather messy, when one gets right down to it. More often, if you can work the contents into the flow of the rest of the prose, it will work a lot better. Make it part of a sentence, or an elaboration on a thought, or an example that flows from the previous bit. Everything should flow from what precedes it, mind. There is nothing wrong with bringing up subjects that will be touched upon later in the article, but please don't say things like, "i'll explain this one later." Just mentioning it and moving on is better, like with the mask - why not say what folks made of the mask at the time? When you introduce something in a chronological sense, introduce it as it introduced at whatever time, and thus the relevance and impact at the time will make more sense, as well as opening the door for potential jokes about it. Then later get into how it started being called headgear, whenever that happened, and go into why... keep things in order. Another messy thing is the abbreviations and whatnot. It becomes very conversational in places - if you are going to make the article conversational, that can work, but it needs to be consistently so, and there needs to be a reason for it, and you still need to format it well - please, avoid randomly capitalising things. If you need to emphasis things, use italics and bolding and whatnot; save the all caps for yelling. Usually a good encyclopedia article will not be conversational at all, however. Keep to the tone, avoid 'anywhos' and calling folks strange (unless it's saying the neighbours considered him very strange) and stick to whatever this is. If this is indeed an encyclopedia article, act like it, be formal, speak well. organise your ideas. Other stuff: Check your spelling and grammar. I noticed a fair amount of typos and fixed some of them, but... eh. And not everything will be caught by spellcheckers, either. When using two words as an adjective, it's more proper to hyphenate them. Unless a section header really is a sentence, don't end it with a period... Please please, please, for the love of all things shiny, don't pluralise words or acronyms with an apostrophe. That's just all manner of wrong. Opening quotes, contrary to popular belief, aren't actually that good of an idea. Better to work the jokes into the prose itself, if they're worth having. Lists are bad. Most readers will have no idea what the actual discography looks like, let alone what's supposed to be funny about this one. Also, they tend to be ugly and attract idiots who like to append complete idiocy onto them. Yes, I know this is a list. This isn't an article. If you already made a point, no need to repeat it in the next section, unless it's part of some joke that requires repeating it. Redundancy is bad. Have you read HTBFANJS? Consider reading HTBAFANJACF as well. Don't censor stuff unless there's some humorous reason to do so. It just looks bad, otherwise. May as well spell out 'fucking' around here. Excess linebreaks are excessive. You don't need three linebreaks between sections, and usually only one hard break will suffice for paragraphs. Self-reference is bad. This is an encyclopedia; no self-respecting encyclopedia self-references itself. Usually we at least pretend to be a self-respecting encyclopedia. Feel free to undo or plow over as much as you feel like of what I did to the article. It's your article; I was just trying to give you an idea of what you can do and how you can do it; explaining these things entirely in the reviews gets boring after the first 50 or so. Is it 'Jay Jay' or 'Jay Kay'? You at least stick with Jay Jay throughout the piece, but don't explain why the switch from the beginning. In writing, consistency is key. Even inconsistency should be consistent. Time makes things read so much better. Do take time with this.
Concept:	2	So the question is, just what are you doing with this? I mentioned already that you should consider your speaker, and that subsequent tone should fit - and this will derive from your overall concept. What is the piece saying, who is saying it, and why, and to whom? And why is this funny? Whatever you do should be a twist, or unexpected, or whatnot. Build off something that really is the case - play upon the headgear for the entire thing, perhaps, or make it as if it's written by some stalker or... something. Whatever it is, be consistent and use it throughout the entire thing. You have the beginnings of several notions here already, but the lack of focus, as well as the disorder and inconsistency of the piece, prevents any of them from doing much. Pick something and use it.
Humour:	4	Subtlety is important in humour, a lot of the time. Remember this. Anyhow, make your jokes fit with your concept and whatnot and they'll probably be more effective, but until you sort out what you're even doing with the piece, there's not much I can say. The opening quote and discography mean nothing to me; not really funny. The parts in which you literally repeat what you already said don't really serve much purpose, either. You may want to concern yourself with the purposeless stuff, as much as what's funny. If parts aren't there for any particular reason, aren't adding to the overall funny of the piece, aren't individual jokes, aren't building up to or part of any, then why are they even there? Everything should be there for a reason.
Images:	0	Technically, you didn't have any images when you put this in for a review, so it's a 0 for that. I mean, I added an image, but the caption's terrible, and it really needs more. But like I said, you can pull your images from anywhere, and don't need to make your own; so long as they're in the article for a reason, fair use generally covers even the copyrighted ones. You can also request others make images at RadicalX's Corner, not that RadicalX ever makes any anymore... Anyhow, point is, images don't be in of themselves funny. So long as they tie into and support the article and/or have funny captions, that's the important part. So get ones that fit your concept and your sections, and you should be swell.
Miscellaneous:	5	I sure like TV... and wearing pants.
Final Score:	15	Take your time with this. Figure out what you're doing, and establish that and organise the overall thing accordingly, playing it out as you go. The entire thing should look and read and amuse much more effectively, if so... good luck. I hope this helps, and, er... feel free to stop by and ask if you have any questions or whatnot.
Reviewer:	1234 ~ 05:09, 26 March 2011

4	Prose and formatting Appearance, flow, overall presentation...
	Alright, I'll start here, as you've expressed an interest in this... and it also kind of needs it. Sorry about the {{ugly}}, by the way. I've been going through and fixing some bits, formatting in general, adding some links (though only on the first half), an image for an example - you don't need to make your own; even stealing them from wikipedia, or pulling images off other articles or off google searches can work. First thing that strikes me is your overall tone - who is the speaker? Why are they speaking? Is this supposed to read as a normal encyclopedia article, or a school report, or a random blog, or something else? It doesn't matter terribly what, so long as it makes sense, there is a reason for that that conceptually makes sense, and so long as you stick to it. The fact that I can't entirely tell isn't a good sign at this stage, but it can be resolved if you go through and make it more consistent. As it is, it seems to be a guy too close to the subject trying to write a normal encyclopedia article and not really succeeding, which is something that can work quite well if you can pull it off. But you need to be more subtle, if that is indeed the case - if you can make it more like a normal Wikipedia article in structure and presentation, but full of bias and personal experience and even random comments that only someone who was there would include. The current random comments, the parenthesised bits, however, are a little too random - I've been moving some of them to footnotes, which is one way to keep them from disrupting the main flow, but things like saying to (Note the rhymes)... it's too blatant, doesn't help the tone, and doesn't have any reason according to the article itself why that is actually explicitly said. Why would you speaker be saying any of this? If there is a why and you can get that across, that will help immensely. But parentheses and footnotes are both rather messy, when one gets right down to it. More often, if you can work the contents into the flow of the rest of the prose, it will work a lot better. Make it part of a sentence, or an elaboration on a thought, or an example that flows from the previous bit. Everything should flow from what precedes it, mind. There is nothing wrong with bringing up subjects that will be touched upon later in the article, but please don't say things like, "i'll explain this one later." Just mentioning it and moving on is better, like with the mask - why not say what folks made of the mask at the time? When you introduce something in a chronological sense, introduce it as it introduced at whatever time, and thus the relevance and impact at the time will make more sense, as well as opening the door for potential jokes about it. Then later get into how it started being called headgear, whenever that happened, and go into why... keep things in order. Another messy thing is the abbreviations and whatnot. It becomes very conversational in places - if you are going to make the article conversational, that can work, but it needs to be consistently so, and there needs to be a reason for it, and you still need to format it well - please, avoid randomly capitalising things. If you need to emphasis things, use italics and bolding and whatnot; save the all caps for yelling. Usually a good encyclopedia article will not be conversational at all, however. Keep to the tone, avoid 'anywhos' and calling folks strange (unless it's saying the neighbours considered him very strange) and stick to whatever this is. If this is indeed an encyclopedia article, act like it, be formal, speak well. organise your ideas. Other stuff: Check your spelling and grammar. I noticed a fair amount of typos and fixed some of them, but... eh. And not everything will be caught by spellcheckers, either. When using two words as an adjective, it's more proper to hyphenate them. Unless a section header really is a sentence, don't end it with a period... Please please, please, for the love of all things shiny, don't pluralise words or acronyms with an apostrophe. That's just all manner of wrong. Opening quotes, contrary to popular belief, aren't actually that good of an idea. Better to work the jokes into the prose itself, if they're worth having. Lists are bad. Most readers will have no idea what the actual discography looks like, let alone what's supposed to be funny about this one. Also, they tend to be ugly and attract idiots who like to append complete idiocy onto them. Yes, I know this is a list. This isn't an article. If you already made a point, no need to repeat it in the next section, unless it's part of some joke that requires repeating it. Redundancy is bad. Have you read HTBFANJS? Consider reading HTBAFANJACF as well. Don't censor stuff unless there's some humorous reason to do so. It just looks bad, otherwise. May as well spell out 'fucking' around here. Excess linebreaks are excessive. You don't need three linebreaks between sections, and usually only one hard break will suffice for paragraphs. Self-reference is bad. This is an encyclopedia; no self-respecting encyclopedia self-references itself. Usually we at least pretend to be a self-respecting encyclopedia. Feel free to undo or plow over as much as you feel like of what I did to the article. It's your article; I was just trying to give you an idea of what you can do and how you can do it; explaining these things entirely in the reviews gets boring after the first 50 or so. Is it 'Jay Jay' or 'Jay Kay'? You at least stick with Jay Jay throughout the piece, but don't explain why the switch from the beginning. In writing, consistency is key. Even inconsistency should be consistent. Time makes things read so much better. Do take time with this.
2	Concept The idea, the angle, the grand funny of the article...
	So the question is, just what are you doing with this? I mentioned already that you should consider your speaker, and that subsequent tone should fit - and this will derive from your overall concept. What is the piece saying, who is saying it, and why, and to whom? And why is this funny? Whatever you do should be a twist, or unexpected, or whatnot. Build off something that really is the case - play upon the headgear for the entire thing, perhaps, or make it as if it's written by some stalker or... something. Whatever it is, be consistent and use it throughout the entire thing. You have the beginnings of several notions here already, but the lack of focus, as well as the disorder and inconsistency of the piece, prevents any of them from doing much. Pick something and use it.
4	Humour The implementation, how funny the article comes out...
	Subtlety is important in humour, a lot of the time. Remember this. Anyhow, make your jokes fit with your concept and whatnot and they'll probably be more effective, but until you sort out what you're even doing with the piece, there's not much I can say. The opening quote and discography mean nothing to me; not really funny. The parts in which you literally repeat what you already said don't really serve much purpose, either. You may want to concern yourself with the purposeless stuff, as much as what's funny. If parts aren't there for any particular reason, aren't adding to the overall funny of the piece, aren't individual jokes, aren't building up to or part of any, then why are they even there? Everything should be there for a reason.
0	Images The graphics themselves, as well as their humour and relevance...
	Technically, you didn't have any images when you put this in for a review, so it's a 0 for that. I mean, I added an image, but the caption's terrible, and it really needs more. But like I said, you can pull your images from anywhere, and don't need to make your own; so long as they're in the article for a reason, fair use generally covers even the copyrighted ones. You can also request others make images at RadicalX's Corner, not that RadicalX ever makes any anymore... Anyhow, point is, images don't be in of themselves funny. So long as they tie into and support the article and/or have funny captions, that's the important part. So get ones that fit your concept and your sections, and you should be swell.
5	Miscellaneous Anything else... or not...
	I sure like TV... and wearing pants.
15	Final score 1234 ~ 05:09, 26 March 2011
	Take your time with this. Figure out what you're doing, and establish that and organise the overall thing accordingly, playing it out as you go. The entire thing should look and read and amuse much more effectively, if so... good luck. I hope this helps, and, er... feel free to stop by and ask if you have any questions or whatnot.