Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Fag/Panic! at the Disco

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

User:Fag/Panic! at the Disco

Ok, I'm totally stuck for where to go from here. I can't find the pictures I want either. Anyone? —talk 19:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Understanding that this is obviously far from finished, I'm going to give scores for the direction the article appears to be going in. I read up a bit on this band before the review. --Nachlader 10:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	5	The way I see it, the humour seems to dwell from the presentation of the article, rather than the subject in question. For me, this kind of idea is a bit mixed, with either good or bad reasons aplenty. It is quite a nice idea, but you may end up with a confused article. After all, you ended up coming to PEE before the article is even done (not to say this is wrong of course, we all need something to do).
Concept:	6	Right, let's talk about the presentation. Your article is spoken via a teacher to some ignorable students and the humour derives from the confusion and argumentation in result. It has some humour value to it, but I do have my repercussions with the idea: Not exclusive. Any article could be presented this way. Doesn't quite fit with the subject. To be honest, if my teacher abandoned the A Level Psychology crap for a lesson or two and spoke about bands instead, this would be pretty enticing. In other words: it wouldn't be boring. So it seems pretty illogical that the "teacher" is perceived to have unattentive students. The tactic you're using here is similar to Sarah Plain and Tall, wherein the author has chosen to writing the article in a tired font, that gives the impression that the book is quite, very boring (which it is). That really suits the article, this however, is slightly amiss. A second article could still be made. In which the author just talks about the band normally, and creates a parody of the band's works and etc there and then, similar to Radiohead. In the aforementioned article (which is close to a VFH, IMO), there only used to be Radiohead (movie), but now any search queries for the band will just go straight to the refreshingly normal article, rife with parody and laughter, and the traffic for the movie alternative will go down. The same could happen to this article: If you create a rather abstract article on something, there is chance that someone else will create an article that is entirely about the band, and readers will go there instead. Know what I mean? However, it must be said: It's a good idea. There aren't too many articles on Uncyclopedia that are presented in such an abstract matter. And after all, even if it's not exclusive, at least one of the articles has to have this presentation, ya? And it has potential VFH value. Sarah Plain and Tall is a VFH, because the presentation that implies the book is boring hit the nail on the head. The same could happen to any abstract presentation formats. Less positive reasons may not actually outweigh the bad, but you never know. If I were you, I'd consider taking this presentation idea to a different topic. A period in history for example. But if you want to try it with this band instead, it won't harm anyone.
Prose and formatting:	6	Nothing problematic in this state anyway, so I'll talk about the prose in the finished article. In the one-and-only section of "History", the "teacher" breaks into the "my life is heeeell" monologue (which I think would be better for the end of the article) and the prose is cut up into single lines. Bear in mind to be careful about the organsation of text when writing the finished article. Also at the top, you have several lines in italics warning the reader that it will be a "factual" (as far as Uncyclopedia is concerned, as we all know) article. I would consider how you present this. I don't know if it should be converted into a template, as I've learnt that readers tend to ignore such things sometimes, but it may be worth using a different method of "warning" the reader. The current way looks unattractive, ignorable and insignificant. In fact, I nearly ignored it. It may not be as good as a template, but then the entire ship is sinky to start with, so you know. Also, don't forget to put song and album names in italics, as well as quotes, imaginary or not.
Images:	0	Obvious really. If you intend to continue with the presentation format of the article, you could supply a few pictures of normal gigs and put the joke emphasis on the captions, for example: "Here is the ban- Oh come on, there's no reading to be done now, just some pictures!" or "In Oregon, 2006. Yeah, you know I don't care either." as time wearies on. As for images where the humour could derive entirely from the picture, I've no idea, it's a bit hard in this case. Maybe you could show the band panicking at a disco, I don't know.
Miscellaneous:	5.75	Average'd. Although the decimal point seems a bit silly in this case.
Final Score:	22.75	The concept shows some promise, but the finished article may not be terrific. This a popular rock band we're talking here, why would people be bored of reading about them? I'd consider taking the article to a different direction, and the presentation elsewhere. If you look at it this way, it's a mild case of two articles for the price of one. Meanwhile, there are other opinions available. Good luck.
Reviewer:	--Nachlader 10:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

ah, thanks for reviewing, I'll take your stuff in mind :P the reason the teacher's bored about it is because he's fully aware that people are just on the page to vandalise it (that is, when it would be mainspace'd). So the page kinda works against the vandals :P —talk 17:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)