Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Opeth

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archived

Guidelines

FAQ

Pee Week

Committee

RotM

Opeth

Perhaps this is a bit bandcrusty, but overall I think the concept is quite funny, so I guess we'll see how it goes. Experienced reviewer, please. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 20:06, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

I'm a big Opeth fan, I'm on it. give me about a day or so --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 15:29 EST 28 January, 2010

Excellent, sounds good to me. Also, I plan on improving/reworking Ku Klux Klan relatively soon, as per your review. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 22:52, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff! It looks as though I will have to get around to it tomorrow, I am quite busy tonight. --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 22:11 EST 28 January, 2010

sorry for the delay, definitely will be done by 20:00 EST tomorrow --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 23:18 EST 29 January, 2010

Eh, no big deal, take your time. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 06:48, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

OK, starting to work on it now, probably done later tonight --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 17:32 31 January, 2010

Humour:	7	I've thought long and hard about what I think of this article... At first I laughed and chuckled quite a bit, since I'm a big prog metal fan. Then I went about thinking about how unfunny most of the jokes would be to people who have no idea what Opeth is. Then I thought about it more and realized the only people who are really going to be looking at the article are people like you and me. So it is from that view that I am doing this review, if that makes any sense. Here's what I liked most: this line: "Like Oprah, Opeth often alternates between being incredibly heavy and incredibly light at regular intervals." is genius on many levels. repeating these levels of genius is unnecessary since you, being the author, know what they are. So lets move on this line: "at the age of nine, for instance, he was forced to listen to a Gorgoroth song." was also pretty funny. again, for those who understand the metal underworld. This is also pretty clever: "This process is known as the “Genesis shift,” so named after 1970s-era Progressive Rock outfit Genesis eventually became a women’s help hotline under the influence of Phil Collins." Format section: I love the links to the 'topics' being the titles of Opeth's albums transposed, especially when you repeat death multiple times. The rest of the section is pretty good, but the part about breaking out into acoustic guitar just doesn't fit in, nor add to the humor. I would replace it with another reference to Opeth's in-song bi-polarness, or just simply get rid of it. So far in the article there has been no direct mention (other than the band's evolution, which is fine) of Opeth's musicality. Regular guests section: I would keep this idea, but re-name the section and re-edit it. Since you have established that the talk show was once a band, it is ok to identify the members of the band as members of the talk show. I suggest renaming the section something like "show experts" or "resident _____" and edit the section accordingly. If not re-naming the section, definitely re-edit the section so that the band members have always been a part of the act 'Opeth.' cultural significance section: The first bit is fairly funny, especially the bit about the fads. This section either needs to be expanded or added to another section though; it just doesn't seem complete. You also need to make a section for the Opeth Record Club. it just doesn't seem right to mention it twice and then never really go into what it includes, it's history, or anything. noteworthy episodes: Now this is a clever way to cover Opeth's albums within your talk show alternate reality. I fully support and approve of this section. Ok, now here's the part where I say, "but it needs more." The article is fairly short. I also feel, and this is where my reviewers perspective kicks in, that perhaps you should make and include more jokes about prog and prog metal in general. How opeth would relate to other prog acts if it were in fact a talk show, maybe other artists and bands would be guests on the show? idk, it's your article so I'll simply say that perhaps including more prog jokes in general could help beef it up and expand it. And of course this is coming from the perspective that pretty much only prog metal or Opeth fans are going to be looking at this article. If I felt a larger number of random people where going to stumble upon this, I wouldn't really recommend that. Overall, I give the humor in your article at this point a 7. I debated a 7.5, but I feel that the briefness of you article detracts from it, and I do think I should take into account that fact that almost all of the jokes are in-jokes and this article would probably be a 3 to a 4.5 if you're just some schmuck looking for something random to read and have no idea what prog metal or Opeth is.
Concept:	7.5	great way to take something that potentially isn't that funny, i.e. a not so well known band, and make it fucking hilarious to those in-the-know.
Prose and formatting:	8	Uncyclopediac to the core, this article really doesn't need anything construction-wise other than maybe adding a section or two or editing a section into another one. Other than that, good introduction, nice use of middle, and great end. again, enlarging existing sections will also be good. You also have just a few spelling and grammar errors, nothing too noticeable though. I only noticed a few when copying and pasting using firefox (the built-in spell check).
Images:	4	This is where the bread and butter of uncyclopedia humor is to me, the effective use of photoshopped or funny images with witty or funny captions. While your article has numerous pictures, I don't feel any humor coming from them or their captions, with exception perhaps of the logo picture, that I would definitely keep (the Oprah logo, even though you can still see 'Oprah' in the background). Fisrt picture of the logo: boring. boring caption. I've been trying to think of what you could use in replacement, but I haven't really been able to think of anything. All i know is that this picture, wit this caption, isn't working. I guess my best suggestion would be to keep the picture and come up with a better caption, although I think if you could find a humorous picture instead, that would make it better. Second picture, logo: pretty good picture (maybe starting from scratch in photoshop using the original as a reference to get rid of the background 'oprah' would be a good idea). You definitely need a different caption though, same problem as the first image. Third picture and caption is probably a keeper. the album images work well with your episodes section. the caption is a nice veiled way to say that those are the album covers.
Miscellaneous:	8	I feel like I dragged the article's score down with the images score, so I'll give you an 8. the overall feel, after all, is funny, so you should break 30 imo. I only review under 30 for those articles that are in need of a fair amount of help.
Final Score:	34.5	All in all you have solid foundations here, think of what you have as a great big foundation of brick with maybe a completed first floor and an uncompleted second floor. in other words, you have roughly 2/3's of what you need, but it needs a roof (capstone concept of section) and marbled columns for the porch (addition of great, funny, little details). I think you could pass this off as a completed article to a random internet dweller with no problems at all, but I think this has the potential to be that much more enjoyable with the addition of extra material and some new images/captions. anyway, I hope this is in-depth enough and has been helpful.
Reviewer:	--Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 0030 EST 1 February, 2010 (ps., sorry that took so long to get to)