From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
I'll give this a hack at reviewing. Soonish. Like, today. Or in one day. One earth day. Etc. Yeah. Meantime, I need to go eat food. *wanders off*-- 20101005 - 01:44 (UTC)
|Humour:||7||It's funny because it's true. At least in some sense, at any rate. Or is it entirely true? The parallels to general realities are what makes it so effective, if that makes any sense. Process of making the article, the connections/contrast to making one here (like with the links) are rather well done.
This yelling expletives bit sounds interesting... how, exactly, did you go about this?
...'pieces of shell'? o__O Man, the badness here is epic. Very well done. Sort of, if you actually wrote that... if you didn't, you could make this more bad... on the other hand, even if you did, you might be able to, translating, and all...
I dunno if you would be able to think of anything, but more on this 'go fuck yourself' bit might be funny. That, or connect the new meaning bit more to the hermaphroditic bit; I was a little confused at first.
And the english wikipedia one is... just scary. As I think I say again later, the thing could use a better conclusion, and more on this dorkiness might work. I mean, where the wind might take it? And horrid grammar, at that.
This whole thing is funny for what it is - a retrospective on crappy wiki contributors everywhere... based around barnacles, in this case. I doubt this would work more than once, but as it's the first of its kind I've ever seen, I found it rather amusing and witty, indeed. Again, as you say you've 'actually written this article', if this is truly the case, a link or links would be nice. Even if it isn't in english and most folks can't actually read it, they still might be able to appreciate the irony of it all a little further. (You could even link to the specific revisions at each stage.)
But you say barnacles are very boring... what's to back that up? Or would specifying be too boring?
|Concept:||8||Well, I'm certainly not one to hold not doing exactly what they say on the tin against articles... I mean, the thing does concern barnacles, just through the layer of the other article. Which I found rather hilarious, I might add.
I guess I said what I had to say on this section in the humour one.
|Prose and formatting:||6||You might want to add some the sectioning. That and some smoother transitions where things remain within the same sections would probably improve the flow a mite. The start of the wikipedia article, the tag demanding expansion and whatnot and its subsequent expansion, the penis, the effectively conclusory conclusion of what happened to the article and comparison to the english one, for instance, these would probably work as individual sections. Improve navigation, establish breakpoints, maybe even indicate what could do with expansion, you know. That sort of thing.
Hells, it'd also make it look more like a normal article, potentially confusing the hell out of people who try to jump in the middle. I love doing that. *shifty eyes*
And mind, the thing could do with a more conclusive conclusion. The fact that you're done talking about the article and the comparison to the english initial revision are a start, but if you tie it all back into that this here is still the this here article on barnacles, it might help. Or something.
Any real reason to keep the red links from the wikipedia bits? Most of those may never get filled in, here, so... eh. Doesn't look very good, is all. The badness of what it's actually saying should be enough, I'd think.
Overall, the flow is decent - things follow logically from one to the next, after all. And the tone certainly fits what it is. There may be some consistency issues, but since I can't think of them, they can't be a big deal. Might do with a proofread for the sake of an odd comma I may have noticed, but I could be imagining it. So, erm... well done.
Oh, the retrospective part has a strange combination of oddly professional and casual ness about it. Not sure if this adds or not, but it does kind of impact the consistency. I guess it works out, but do be careful.
Although I did note some punctuation and noun-verb agreement stuff, so yeah, do proofread it.
|Images:||6||They're so cute! Adorable little barnacles... er, wait, I mean, your images are fine. Seem a mite lacking, though; the barnacles on the rock, while clearly boring, could be even more boring. Or there could be more of them. Emphasize the point, and all, since the entire thing is based upon the boringness of the things themselves, thus enabling you to go off in this other direction.
The barnacle penis, now that one was funny. The lead-up is a little abrupt, but it is there and does work, so it's not a major issue. It certainly is not something you'd want to take out. You could potentially also add something tying it into the premise of barnacles themselves being quite boring, since you do get away from that going into the about the article part. Might help to remind people to tie the article together. Or not, but I'd advise at least looking into it.
I don't suppose you could actually get a picture of a barnacle going and fucking itself? Hmm, they could make a sport of it...
|Miscellaneous:||7||Heeee. Heee. Heeeeeeeee. It's lovely, though. Really. Have a subsequent number.|
|Final Score:||34||Hopefully, this contains something useful. I said what I could think of, and now I can't remember what I said, so... er... well, it's a lovely article about an article, strange and funny and silly. If you were a barnacle, I'd... um... nevermind. Anyways, good luck with this lovely little thing. I wonder how it'd do on VFH? Or would it be too odd a setup for folks? I hope not.|
|Reviewer:||-- 20101005 - 22:33 (UTC)|