Your concept here to me feels disjointed and scattered, and this is what is destroying everything that comes after. So let's focus on what makes a concept work.
First thing you have to find is a topic that has inherent humour value. Now that you have. The idea of spherical cows is wonderful. Keep in mind we are talking about a scientific model here that displays that simplifying things for scientific purposes meant you end up working at cross purposes.
What can destroy this is that an in-joke, even one as widely recognised in the scientific community as this, loses value when it's not recognisable by your audience. So what can we do with this?
There are a few directions you can go. The first is explain what your topic is about. One example of this is Six Hats, which I know most of the people reading it would have no idea what it is about, let alone know about an extremely minor controversy about it. So all this had to be explained, but explained in a humorous way. Another example of this is Andy Richter, which if you read this with no idea of who this guy is - as I did when I first read it - it actually has enough factual information in it to show you who he actually is.
The other possibility is to try the opposite approach, and to write as though you have absolutely no idea what is going on. This is the approach used behind Stereotype, where the entire concept of stereotyping is incorrectly defined - but done in enough detail and in an encyclopaedic manner.
Now you have definite aspects of the latter here. This is what I would focus on. I would use wikipedia:cattle as a source on how this should be laid out and a general guide as to what you talk about. After all you are talking about a completely new species - the fun is in the detail.
The other thing to think about is that an article is made up of three parts. The beginning, the middle, and the end. In Uncyc, this could be considered your opening, your build-up, and your punchline.
A friend of mine who is a stand-up comic explained it as referring back to the joke. The example he gave is one of his contemporaries used to tell a joke, based on a real life event, that went along the lines like this:-
I was at MacDonalds the other day and I needed to go to the crapper. While I was there, sitting there doing my business, I heard this strange rustling noise in the next cubicle. I couldn't work out what it was so I had a peek, and there was this guy, pants around his ankles, also doing his stuff while unwrapping a burger and eating it!
Now this got a laugh, but it stopped there. My friend suggested that he should expand on it, as it was good, but it needed something else. So added to the end of it was:-
So I'm down there, peeking under the cubicle wall, staring at this guy eating his burger, hardly about to believe my eyes, and then he sees me. Our gazes are locked, and I realise that while he was the freak eating a burger on the shitter, I was the weird bloke peeking under the toilet wall at him. We kept looking at each other and I realised that I'd have to do something to get out of it gracefully. So I said, as calmly as I could "Did you get any fries with that?"
He called it keeping the joke rolling. My way of thinking is to take it to the furthest logical conclusion.
Take the article UnNews:'Zombies' have free speech rights too, US court rules. This is a good article, and funny too. But it could be extended further, as was discussed on User talk:MrN9000#Court Rules on Zombie unhuman Rights. What we did in discussion at least is take a piece of absurdity, and then extend it, and then extend it further. This article could easily be made into something twice as long - staying funny the entire way - simply by keeping it rolling.