Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Sycamore/David Bowierewrite
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
User:Sycamore/David Bowierewrite[edit source]
I've been tinkering with this for a while now and trying to best the ones i have done. It's very focused on bowie but hopfully it reamins funny for everyone. Thanks for your time--— Sir Sycamore (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
| Humour: | 5 | A lot of work obviously went into this article. The biggest problem with it is that most of the jokes require the reader to be intensely familiar with David Bowie to understand them. I mean, I'm pretty familiar with Bowie - I don't own any of his albums, but I can sing along with maybe ten of his singles, I've seen Labyrinth, I've seen a couple VH-1 specials on him, and I've read his Wikipedia article. And 90% of this article was just lost on me. The article goes into excruciating detail about every one of Bowie's artistic endeavors. My advice: instead, stick to the things the general public knows about. Space Oddity. Ziggy Stardust. "Try-sexuality." The Nazi salutes. "China Girl." "The Man Who Sold the World." The Trent Reznor stuff. Labyrinth. That's all in there - but so are a thousand other things that only the most dedicated Bowie fan has a clue about. |
| Concept: | 6 | The concept of this article is, approximately, "In 1981, David Bowie did X. It sucked. In 1982, David Bowie did X. It sucked. In 1983, David Bowie did X. It sucked." That's more or less a standard way to write a band article, and it gives plenty of opportunities for biting satire, but here it gets kind of repetitive. Also, some of the jokes in the picture captions are repeated almost verbatim in the article. I know how painful it is to trim one's own writing, but this really needs to be trimmed down. There are only so many times that an article can get away with telling the same joke. |
| Prose and formatting: | 8 | The formatting is excellent. The writing, on the other hand, was littered with literally hundreds of minor usage, punctuation, and capitalization errors. I went through and fixed most of them - it took me half an hour. I think right now the prose/formatting deserves an "8," but take that with a grain of salt, because I'm partly reviewing my own work.
Also, it's obvious I live on the opposite side of the Atlantic, but there are a lot of phrases that much of the article's audience just won't recognize. I don't know if all the "was seen to"s is a UK phrase, but we don't have "was seen to" over here. |
| Images: | 8.5 | The images are well-placed and appropriate, and there are the right number of them. The captions are appropriate but not hilarious. |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | I just want to point out that there are a few things in there I just don't understand at all. These include ""Yeah, course it has an MOT", "adjusting to middle age the hard way was his move on the matter," "The ginger hair revival, along with the middle-aged rebellion," and "Reportedly, Bowie found the deal amicable from EMI." I think I might have some idea what some of these mean, but they aren't phrased in a way that makes it easy. |
| Final Score: | 33.5 | It's a pretty quality article, but as it stands, it doesn't have VFH potential or a very widespread audience. If you want it to be something that the few hardcore Bowie devotees who stumble upon the article will really appreciate, that's fine. There are lots of fine articles like that: So So's Romance of the Three Kingdoms comes to mind as something only three people will appreciate (and I'm one), but they'll appreciate the hell out of it. But, if you want the wider Uncyclopedia audience to appreciate it, there's a lot that has to be trimmed and a few things that have to be expanded. |
| Reviewer: | Hyperbole 03:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | |