From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Well, I've rewritten the article on Earth. I feel that I've made a big improvement of the last version, and thus I've moved it into the mainspace already. I'd like some critical comments though on how to make what I have better. This doesn't have to be incredibly in-depth, I'd just like specific suggestions.
- I'll get this one. -- 08:50, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
|Humour:||7||Right, I enjoyed the humour in this one, it is generally intelligent, punchy and genuinely amusing, though there are a couple of things I would recommend you take a look at. The first thing that struck me upon reading the article was that you are trying to do a couple of things that aren't really necessary; yes 'The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy' is an excellent novel and Douglas Adams does lay down some excellent ideas about the galactic communities view of Earth. There is nothing wrong with using these ideas as bases, but my feeling is that you do not need to directly take basic ideas from the novel and put them in the article, the jokes about Dolphins and Mice for instance are good jokes, but to me they felt like they shouldn't be in the article for the simple reason that when you are just using your own ideas or simply drawing inspiration from Adams' material the humour is at its best, directly porting the jokes across, for me at least, felt a bit lazy and I would encourage you to consider working on this a bit more and making the humour your own. Some of my favourite humour came when you were talking about humans being primitive, much to the amusement of other inhabitants of the universe and this exactly the sort of humour that makes your article good. Another thing I was unsure about was the acknowledgement of the existence of God, this is not because I am some kind of raving atheist, but rather because it feels out of place in the article as it is, the way you present it makes it seem as though the other inhabitants of the universe know God and converse with him on a seemingly regular basis, my feeling was that if this is going to be the case that you should try your best to characterise him in some way as I was unsure how you wished the reader to respond to the character. My enduring feeling was that if there is a God and all the other species know about him, and thus agree that he did not create the Earth, surely they would make more of the earthlings tendency to worship him for doing so, and perhaps God's reaction to this. I think that you should either try to expand the character of find a different way to make jokes in the early part of the "Chronology section, as currently the jokes concerning God are falling a little flat.
The other thing that struck me was that you should try to be careful about the ways you make jokes, something may be staggeringly obvious to you but a reader may just be confused by what you have said. A possible example of this is where you say "The smaller ones, such as the Juan Phillipe plate, are in the process of being trampled to death by much larger plates, such as the North American plate. Some contend that such outcomes as these are racially motivated, Juan is a major advocate for this theory, but North America claims that this is completely bogus." I am unsure how you intend us to read this, are the plates supposed to be able to communicate? Or are these claims made by humans, I suspect this is not the case as you state repeatedly that humans are too stupid/stuck up to realise that there is other life in the universe. Try to make this a bit clearer as I am struggling to ascertain your exact intentions here at the moment.
|Concept:||8||This is pretty good and the idea of assessing Earth in the manner of vastly superior aliens is just as amusing now as it was when Douglas Adams did it. My problems here centre on the narrative voice, you should be careful to ensure that the narrative voice remains consistent in its evaluation of Earth, I like the whole sarcastic and scornful evaluation and would encourage you to expand it into the Human History section, which while quite amusing as it is, could be made better by the narrative voice perhaps suggesting why it is so amusing. My only question is that perhaps the tourism idea should be reconsidered, not massively but you say at one point that human pollution is killing plants and animals thus deterring possible tourism to the planet, but prior to this, and after the narrative voice insists that nobody wants to go to Earth at all and even scientists couldn't care less, it just seemed unnecessary to put this in to me. This is a pretty small qualm and there is no desperate need to remedy it, my feeling was simply that you could replace it with another slightly more apt joke.|
|Prose and formatting:||10||Some truly excellent work here, your spelling and grammar is very good, despite being Americanised, and you have even won the second ever exemption from my proofreading lecture. My single problem is that there may be some room for another image, perhaps for the final section, where there would be room for one should you move the image of the dolphin up a bit higher. There is room for another image in the "Composition and Structure" section too, but I'm nitpicking here really. The above are entirely optional changes and everything else is executed brilliantly. I very rarely hand out tens these days because no matter how much I like something someone can always take issue with a perfect score, but here I feel it is deserved, excellent work.|
|Images:||8||Some good image choices here and my only complaint is that they could be linked a bit more closely to the text, a lot of the time you manage to do this, but with images like the first one you make no mention of the planet's military strength so it feels quite redundant, my feeling is that you could improve this and a couple of your others. Remember the image of God should you decide to make changes on that score, and remember to take time over your captions, their importance cannot be understated.|
|Miscellaneous:||8||My overall grade of the article.|
|Final Score:||41||A really good article which I enjoyed from start to finish, there were a couple of bumps along the way, but those could be excused were I reading for VFH or something like that. The problems that do exist should be worked on with care so as not to spoil what you have done already, but equally do not be afraid of experimenting with new ways to improve it; my recommendation is that you should focus on your own originality and you will have a true gem here. If you have any questions or comments for me then you can leave a message on my talk page. Good luck making any changes and well done.|
|Reviewer:||--12:38, February 23, 2010 (UTC)|