Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Swasticow
Swasticow[edit source]
Our page is perfect, but if you can improve it... lets see you try.... start trying... NOW!
| Humour: | 3 | Close to being standard bandcruft, if I'm honest. No really funny lines stand out after 3 reads through now. |
| Concept: | 4 | Meh - not exactly a famous band, and it's pretty much a standard biography article. |
| Prose and formatting: | 5 | I've given the spelling a cursory tidy up, although I've missed a few bits. But there's a couple of lists in there (lists aren't popular around here unless they have a point to them), and it could benefit from better structuring. |
| Images: | 5 | Well there is one, and it seems perfectly relevant. Nothing funny though, and you could do with at least one more. |
| Miscellaneous: | 4 | I never know what to put in this damn box. |
| Final Score: | 21 | It completely depends what you're aiming for here. If you just want a standard band page, with in-jokes that fans may spot (I'm guessing there are some in there), well done, mission accomplished. It's not as bad as many band pages we see on VFD, and I'm guessing it would survive happily. If you're after a genuinely funny Uncyclopedia article, or evena run at VFH, a lot of work is still needed. |
| Reviewer: | --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 11:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC) | |
Comments:
Remove the lists. Lists don't play well unless there is a point to them. And they benefit from brevity. The trivia one is the usual selection of random "facts" that seem to have been made up in a bored moment, and the releases list is completely unfunny.
Try to choose an approach that has a humour factor, and stick to it. Just writing a band biog is pretty pointless here - we're not Wikipedia, we're not after facts, just laughs. But not totally random ones. So for instance you could discuss in depth their quest for the perfect bassline - the years of experimentation, the scientific approach etc - and keep it totally straight-faced as you then discuss the variation from maybe an initial "duh duh duh da duh" to the masterpiece you so eloquently describe here. Sort of "the change from 'duh duh' to 'da du' was a masterstroke of postmodern eclecticism, transposing at once the sullen plod into a daringly new sound, and not just a change in spelling." That's a really bad, rushed-out example, but maybe it will give you a better idea.
Essentially, as you're dealing with something less than a household name here, you really need to give people a concept they can grab hold of quickly, and that stays consistent throughout, otherwise you'll get a lot of people thinking "who? Never heard of them - and this doesn't seem that funny, where's that random page button?" like I did.
If you'd like further suggestions, give me a yell on my talk page, and I'll try to say some more. And if you disagree with my opinions, others are available. Good luck! --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 11:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)