Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Mastersinger

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Mastersinger

Rotating-Fortress 21:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	5	Well, this didn't make me laugh. Rather, it made me squint my eyes, tilt my head to the side, and scratch my head. I didn't understand a word of this article. I don't know what (if anything) it's parodying. I tried to look up "Mastersinger" on Wikipedia, but all I found was Wikipedia:Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg, which looks like it might be relevant - but doesn't really help me get the jokes - and Wikipedia:Meistersinger, which really isn't helpful at all. Judging by the fact that over two weeks have elapsed with no review, I suspect other Uncyclopedians have had the same response: they've looked at the article, and thought "Hey, this prose is tight, the article is well-structured, the guy seems to be skewering something with his rapier wit - and I have no idea what one single word of this thing means. Maybe I'll review something else." The bottom line here is that you've got to give us some reference point, or almost no one will be able to appreciate this.
Concept:	4	The Pee Review Scoring Guidelines describe "4" as "Might be VFD/NRV/Rewrite." Which is absolutely correct, because this concept might be anything. Which is my way of saying that I have no idea what the concept is. I don't understand what the Güild is - something like a group of German Freemasons, I'm thinking? Is it a real group? Are we satirizing them, or are we satirizing the Freemasons by transporting them to Germany, or... you see my problem here? If I don't know what we're making fun of, how can I enjoy this?
Prose and formatting:	6	It's not terrible, but there are lots of mistakes. The first paragraph makes me think the article is going to have something to do with Runescape. The sentence "Now there are three sectors of the association: one located in Mainz, Strasbourg, and Nuremberg respectivly." is a grammatical mess, and "respectively" is misspelled. "they were able to rebuild using stolen tax dollars, I mean marks, no wait, don't they use euros now?" should be punctuated with something other than commas. "it is a complete and utter lie that there is any secret Güild symbols" needs to be "there are" any secret Güild symbols - pluralization agreement. "As a member's skill decreases, he would progress" combines the present tense with the subjunctive in an unpleasant way. "The first cast is called the püpil, whom wear": the word is "caste" (it appears in its correct form later in the article) and "whom" is an object; the pronoun here is a subject. The "Frienß" section has two sentences in a row that start with the word "Now"; that's not good. "This cast is one catergory ahead of the frienß, singers wear red colored rings" is a comma splice. "make sure the frienß caste say "Möchten" has a singular subject and a plural verb. "kill a mastodon with your bare hands during the spring equinox, if you're short a mastodon" is another comma splice. "This cast is one category ahead of the singers, pöets wear red colored scarfs" has three problems: it's a comma splice, it reverts to the misspelled "cast," and the plural of "scarf" is "scarves." "of your own composition" doesn't make any sense. Was that supposed to be "volition," maybe? It still wouldn't make very much sense. "black colored staple guns in Nuremberg, and plus they all get cool T-shirts" is a run-on sentence. "even more then the invention of sliced bread, their rules of composition" is a comma splice.
Images:	7	They look good - I don't know if these are real "secret society" symbols, but it looks like it. I'd caution against all-German, untranslated captions, though, since most of us can't read them (and thus can't enjoy them).
Miscellaneous:	5.5	Averaged
Final Score:	27.5	I need this joke explained to me. And there's a saying: if you need the joke explained to you, it isn't funny. Maybe what this really needs is a link to Wikipedia, or some external webpage - some way of telling the reader "Go do your homework, and then come back, and this will make you chuckle."
Reviewer:	Hyperbole 03:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)