From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
I like Alex Jones by the way, and believe a lot of stuff he says. However, it is so easy to make jokes about him thanks to his tendency to blow everything out of proportion. He's fun as hell! Mattsnow 10:13, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Funny as hell! DJ Mixerr 22:14, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
- So, you believe in that NWO/Illuminati/Baby-Eating-Masonic-Reptilian-Zionists-From-Outher-Space bullshit? WTF is wrong with you? Srsly. 220.127.116.11 01:12, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
|Humour:||8||Hi Matt. So this is a pretty good article, as you probably discerned from its nearly-successful stint on VFH. I think there are one or two parts that still seem a little “first-drafty” however.
One of the funniest parts of the article, in my opinion, is the way you contrast the truth with the conspiracy, but you don't utilise it as well as you could. Sometimes you don't represent both views. The History section, for instance, only really puts forward the conspiracist view. It would be good to have a contrasting sentence with the rational perspective here too, which most of the other sections do.
Then in Operation: Bohemian Grove Infiltration, one of your jokes isn't as successful as it could be because you're talking down to your reader. The line is: ”In fact he didn't need to conceal his massive body; he just walked right through the main entrance! So much for the utter secrecy you could expect from such a demonic bunch with unlimited money and power!” The exclamation marks don't help either. Try something more simple and subtle like "...And despite the unlimited money and power he attributes to the organisation, Jones somehow managed to sneak his massive body through the front door." Not a hilarious example I know, but hopefully it demonstrates my point that drier language is probably a better option here – otherwise it just looks like a blunt attack.
Further to that, at times I think the whole thing gets a bit informal in tone to be particularly funny. The most noticeable example of this is probably the big section on the Cremation of Care, which stops being encyclopaedic and turns into a bit of a rambling diatribe against, well, anyone you can insult really. I would suggest reworking this into a more formal tone, as if it was really an encyclopaedic entry on the cremation of care.
Finally, the water pistol joke is a bit silly; you could probably stand to lose it. It doesn't really make sense.
|Concept:||10||No complaints here.|
|Prose and formatting:||7||Ok, so there are a couple of instances where your prose is weak. It's mostly just issues with the flow; the article has an odd flow which mostly works but at times becomes difficult to follow. Here are all the examples I could find:
Apart from that it's all good I think.
|Images:||7||Images are all good, I think you could stand to get one or two more in there though. It would be nice to see some more pictures of Bohemian Grove, as right now it mostly seems to be pictures of Jones and his conspiracies.|
|Final Score:||40||So overall it's a good one. A few tweaks and I'd be happy to give this another go on VFH. If there's anything I've said here that you want me to explain better, or if you want my opinion on anything I might have missed, or even if you're just lonely, please let me know on my talky page and I'll try to help. Keep up the good work and I hope the review is ok.|
|Reviewer:||--Black Flamingo 20:38, June 28, 2011 (UTC)|