From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Fcukman 13:49, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
|Humour:||5||Hi there, Mr-ex777. I see you're new to the site. That's great, it's always nice to have new users, so welcome; I hope you enjoy your stay. Anyway, let's have a look at this article. Hmm. To be brutally honest, it is in fairly bad shape right now, but hopefully I can give you some tips on how to get it spruced up all nice and shiny. So here we go...
And as for the rest of the intro - you introduce your concept well enough; basically these "fantards" are a subspecies of humanity and are incredibly dangerous. It's slightly confusing though. You say, for instance, that they live in the "evil aeon known as Fandom". I'm not sure what you mean by this; are you suggesting "Fandom" is a place? The capitalisation would suggest so. And what do you mean by "aeon"? I always thought (and dictionary.com confirmed) that an aeon was a measurement of time (although I think it can mean a kind of godlike entity too). The other problem I have here is that you never say why they're so dangerous. I suspect there may not be an answer to that, because obviously these people aren't really dangerous - no one is dangerous on the internet, we're all just fat guys sitting on computers (except for me, obviously, I'm as svelte and sexy as a young Kate Bush).
The last part of the article
|Concept:||4||You don't really have much of a concept, besides the rather strong assertion that "fantards" are stupid, of course. It would be nice to see an angle of some kind here, if only to give it a little consistency. I think the main thing to focus on in regards to this is making it more realistic and less nonsensical. Perhaps you could adopt a more satirical approach, like this article does? That follows a similar subject matter to yours, and yet does it in a wholly different style. I'm not saying you have to take a radically different stance like that article does, I'm just trying to show you that there are many options available to you. Anyway, have a think about it; anything is better than the random-nonsense approach. Just make sure it's consistent, that's the key really.
A few questions your article should probably answer: Who are "fantards", really? Why do we care about them enough to read an article about them? What kind of work do they produce? Is any of the work good? What differentiates them from normal fans? What do the critics that you mention actually think of their work? What do the original authors think of their work?
|Prose and formatting:||3||I'm not going to lie to you, your prose is very poor. Sorry. Pretty much everything that can go wrong with writing has done so, including spelling, grammar, flow and comprehensibility. You generally use English very poorly, and one of the strangest things you do in regards to this is the bizarre non-phrases you use. For example, you say the "fantards have an EXTREME rivalry to the common mind". What on Earth does that mean? It's not a common phrase and doesn't even seem to make grammatical sense. Another, in the same section, is "RIPE use of critics,again [sic]". I honestly have no idea what that means. There's loads of stuff throughout the article like this, so I recommend you have a very careful read through. You should definitely try reading it out loud to yourself, as this can help sort out the flow. It may be worth enlisting the help of a proofreader, who can be contacted here, although I'm not sure how active they are these days, and they probably won't be able to fix your phrasing, just the spelling/grammar. It's still probably worth it though. Read up on our featured articles too, because generally speaking they all have impeccable literacy (mostly). The only other thing I can really suggest is putting it through a spellchecker, eg. MS Word, and sorting things out that way (but even that won't catch everything).
As for formatting, well, the whole article's pretty ugly. This is caused by numerous things; lists, needless use of all-caps and bold and poorly placed/sized images. Try to keep your images equidistant from each other so they're not piling up and ruining the flow of text. I've already recommended you get rid of the lists, so that should be ok. I would get rid of the all-caps too, because like I said; it's needless.
|Images:||5||The first one is hard to follow, and not just because your caption seems to make no sense. It's hard to see what the characters are saying, and to be honest, even when I did read it I wasn't too sure what they were talking about. I'm guessing it's a bit of an esoteric reference. While this isn't so bad, it might be worth coming up with a better opening image than this - something big and broad that establishes your concept. You can always move this one further down if you want, but you might need to enlarge it, and explain it better in the caption. The next two (of the gay guys and the "original characters" are ok; they fit in nicely with the topic, and the sonic one is even pretty funny. The only problem is with their positioning. It's all a bit messy.
The third one of the forum conversation - I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. I can't understand what they're talking about, and the image is too small to read anyway. I can't see any other option but getting rid of it to be honest. The last image of the standard "fantard" isn't so great either. I don't see how it relates really. What makes this guy a standard "fantard"? He's angry, that's about the only remarkable thing. If there's nothing funny in the way they look it may be best simply not to show one.
As for ideas for more pictures; the most obvious thing that springs to mind is simply more pictures of fanart. I suppose there are limits on how funny that can be, however. I guess when you don't have much on angle it's hard to come up with good ideas for images, that's why you should definitely have a think about your concept, then maybe bring this back to Pee Review when you've done some more work.
|Final Score:||21||So overall there are some decent ideas in here but at the moment the article still feels very much like a first draft. With the piece being a couple of days old though, that's really nothing out of the ordinary. The main things to work on, in my opinion, are making it less nonsensical, and sorting out the spelling/grammar. It might also help if you reconsider your angle, but it's ultimately up to you of course. 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, please let me know on my talky page and I'll try to help. I hope the review is ok.|
|Reviewer:||--Black Flamingo 14:26, April 11, 2011 (UTC)|