Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Mothers Against Noise (2nd review)

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Mothers Against Noise

I'm seeking a second opinion on this article as I have finally jazzed it up and expanded it. Hopefully it remains that even though it mentions artists that most people wouldn't have heard of, the message and humour still remains clear and unalienating. —talk 16:32, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

I'm in here now, 24 hours. --ChiefjusticeDS 23:54, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	6	Right, your humour is reasonable and the article certainly has enjoyable parts, however there are some problems I would recommend you take a look at before doing anything else with your article. The very first thing I noticed was the construction of the jokes seems painfully obvious at times, and very oblique at others, and this can often lead to a lot of the jokes in your article making less of an impact than you want. This primarily manifests itself through your joke about the article being told from a right wing, republican-esque, point of view. The problem is that while the title gives some of this away, it doesn't really go far enough and I spent your preamble confused about where you were coming from with the jokes, had you put in a quick word suggesting that this was the view of a group in America who actually endorse what the article is about then I would have picked things up rather more swiftly. Now I am not suggesting that you simply write at the start of the article "THIS IS A MESSAGE FROM THE GROUP MENTIONED ABOVE" it would be better if you were a bit more subtle about things, for example where you say "The horrifying fact that this so-called "music" regularly tops the charts in Japan shows this is an issue that needs to be dealt with." is just the sort of place where you can both make an extra joke and also ground the article in context. Try something like "this is an issue that needs to be dealt with, before it spreads to the glorious USA, and tears the country apart from within, remember the battle for freedom can only be won by limiting it as much as possible" While I have gone slightly over the top with that particular joke, I hope the point is in evidence. In contrast to the problem above there are times during the body of the article where I felt that you were leading the reader through more than would perhaps be desirable, carefully signposting jokes is absolutely fine but people much prefer to make their own way through some jokes and to glean humour from jokes themselves. This description doesn't really represent the extent of the complaint here, so permit me to expand. A point in the article that caught my eye for this reason was "First, noise will inspire your sons and daughters to rebel against society somehow, which will often manifest itself in the form of violence, not only physical violence but violence against nature such as homosexuality and disagreeing with republican views". I felt you could have been a bit more subtle here and still have gained a greater impact from the joke, a non-sequitur on the final sentence linking the reader to a page related to conservatism, would reward readers for reading carefully and still produce the same effect but in a less overt way. This applies to some of the other jokes, my best advice is to read through carefully and to make up your own mind about what needs changing. To shift my focus to the "Famous Noise artists" section; my recommendations here are firstly that you try to relate them more to the article, while they are obviously related it is not clear why they are there. My advice would be to flesh out the prose on each one and try to make them read in the same way as the rest of the article, remember to be bias to the relevant point of view throughout.
Concept:	7	A reasonably good concept, unfortunately marred by some poor execution in places, sometimes the article flows in exactly the way I suspect you wanted and I enjoyed reading these parts, however there are other points where the tone jolts quite badly and it becomes less easy to read the article. Take a second look through your article and try to identify these points, it seems to me that you are attempting to combine the encyclopaedic style with the third person style, if you want to do this then you need to make the bias staggeringly obvious to make it work. For now I would recommend that you try to stick to a single tone, so try to identify points where the tone stops being consistent, try to prune out any parts that sound overtly encyclopaedic, using an encyclopaedic structure is fine, but my advice would be to either try to make the article sound like it is from an encyclopaedia or be informal, try to avoid doing both.
Prose and formatting:	7	Not too bad on the spelling and grammar front, but I would recommend some proofreading after your edits as there are some problems. The proofreading service is also at your disposal if proofreading is not for you. Other than that the most work is required on your formatting, while I understand the inherent difficulties associated with formatting appropriately when you are doing this sort of thing I would still recommend you try to tidy it up a bit, there is a lot of seemingly unnecessary white space and it all seems rather untidy. If you are unsure how to sort this then I would recommend you take a look at how other authors have accomplished the same thing. Otherwise you are OK on this.
Images:	8	Nothing too badly wrong here, just try to make the images flow with the article. But I'm nitpicking with that, your images are all relevant and link well to the text, you should remember to update your captions to reflect any major changes to the text.
Miscellaneous:	7	My overall grade of the article.
Final Score:	35	Ultimately, your article is a very mixed bag with good and bad points, there is no reason you cannot make it much better and I would be disappointed if you chose not to. I enjoyed parts of your article and I think I could definitely enjoy the rest if you made some changes. If you have any questions or comments then you can reach me on my talk page. Good luck making any changes. --ChiefjusticeDS 22:21, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
Reviewer:	--ChiefjusticeDS 22:21, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

wow, I don't want to do your review injustice, but it having exactly the same score as the last review seems a little harsh... —talk 22:30, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read the other review, I find it prejudices my view of the article, I'm sorry if you feel that the score is unfair. --ChiefjusticeDS 22:56, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

nah, it's fair. I'm just upset that apparently everything i've done for the article since the last review has apparently done essentially nothing :( —talk

Not necessarily nothing, change inherently breeds new problems, it is the position you are in to fix these problems that has changed, I hope you keep working at it. --ChiefjusticeDS 23:01, December 29, 2009 (UTC)