Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Let It Be
 | This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read. The current version of this page can be found at Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Let It Be 2. |
Let It Be
| Humour: | 6 | Well, some parts are amusing; much is kind of random and run-on. |
| Concept: | 6 | Articles on albums are OK, but not inherently good concepts. |
| Prose and formatting: | 4 | Ow. This needs fixing. See endnotes. |
| Images: | 5 | The image of the album cover with Paul replaced by a cat is nice. The other two pics are not very good. Get someone to paste a cat's head on Paul in the black-and-white; the purple cartoon kitty does not cut the mustard. |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | Right now I'm feeling lukewarm about this article. It needs work. |
| Final Score: | 27 | |
| Reviewer: | One-eyed Jack | |
Endnotes:
Grammar and spelling: "Not only they played on somebody's roof, they were lipsinking the entire time" is not good English. "Not only were they playing on somebody's roof" would be correct. There is no such thing as lipsinking; what you mean is lip syncing (two words). Haloween is Halloween. I notice that you spell alcohol incorrectly in two places but correctly in another, so I know you know better! It's just attention to detail.
Intangible stuff like flow: Sentence structure is, of course, largely a matter of style and taste. But a strangely structured sentence can really throw a reader off track, and encourage him to stop reading and click that old Random page link.
The sentence "There is a sequel to it, Let It Be... Naked which is praised for being produced by George Martin, not Phil Spector who killed some girl" is just that kind of strangely-structured sentence. It seems to me that "There is a sequel to Let It Be, called Let It Be...Naked!" is the main statement of the sentence. The next bit, "...which is praised for being produced by George Martin", is a subclause -- a child-phrase tacked on to the end of the main statement. And "...not Phil Spector" is a child tacked onto that, while "...who killed some girl" is yet another add-on to the sub-sub-clause.
All this is to say, it's a weak, run-on sentence. Your real point may be to slam Phil Spector, and if that's the case, then for the sake of God and the reader make that point in a strong sentence dedicated to that purpose. Rewrite!
One way to do that might be:
- The highly-praised sequel to Let It Be was named Let It Be...Naked!. It showed not only Ringo's famous chest hair but also George Harrison's exceptionally shapely bum. The real draw, however, was that George Martin edged out Phil Spector as producer of Let It Be...Naked! Everyone knew Spector would end up killing some girl. He was just that kind of guy.
You can rewrite it however you want, of course; do it as your sense of style dictates. But I would strongly advise rewrites. You might get advice from Ceridwyn's Proofreading Service.
----OEJ 17:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)