From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
I dunno if anyone remembers, but I used to write things, once upon a time. I saw this conservation week as a way back in, and kind of enjoyed playing about with this, but I'm not hugely satisfied with it and I can't put my finger on why. I was hoping someone else could.
|This article is under review by|
Sayeth Gerry: shotgun!!
- surely there's not a better subject for a milestone review than a UU work. 21:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
|Humour:||8||average of sections
a strong start. you establish your direction, and i certainly am drawn in enough to want to read the rest of the article. some of the wording is a bit tricky, though, for example 'If so, it is eminently possible that you have eventually paused...' i had to read a few times, possibly due to the alliteration and difficult word use. also the ending sentence: 'when you see on the screen a gazelle': i understand that you want 'gazelle' to be the last word in the paragraph, but currently it just sounds weird. try some other combinations and see if you can make it so that when you read it aloud it sounds smoother. besides better flow, i also thought that certain junctures went against the grain of the rest of the paragraph's tone, particularly 'something that's gonna sack the gazelle', which i feel should read more professional or scholarly.
again a solid section. plenty of humor, such as the giraffe link. however, my main problem is again the language: i've never been a fan of second person in articles such as this, like 'You never see a gazelle go back to save the other'. i'd rather see something like 'gazelles are not known to back to save each other', but i sense that this is more a matter of preference. it does work well in certain articles, such as a lot of cajek's work...but i feel like there's a line, and this isn't cajek-y enough for the second person. also again, the informal tone like 'They're all like...' takes away from the message, i feel.
although this section has again the same problems...it was funnier. i giggled. but again, throwing words like 'seriously' at the start of sentences makes this feel more like a blog post than a fake encyclopedia article. other than these tone/word choice problems i really am not seeing much to complain about here.
excellent section, good ending, and a better use of this tone. i can even begin to see how you could change the whole article to a second person rant if you so desired. it would take some work, but it could be done.
|Concept:||8||5/5 points for a well-known concept worthy of parody.
3/5 points for execution. this one doesn't feel quite 'polished' to me, as my stated issues with the tone and wording make it seem a little...weird. however, after reading i checked the history (which i refrained from doing before this point to stay as unbiased as possible) and i can see that much of the good content is yours, and much of the good content with weird wording was there when you started. i'll ponder this and let you know what i think in 'final comments.'
|Prose and formatting:||7||formatting was mostly fine, the second image had a distorting effect at my resolution. one redlink. prose had some mistakes along with the aforementioned tone, read it over again to weed them out or slap it on the proofreading service and someone will take a look for you (probably me).|
|Images:||7||adequate number of images with adequate captions. nothing hilarious, yet they controbute nicely.|
|Miscellaneous:||7.5||averaged via magic|
|Final Score:||37.5||my preview button tells me that your score is 37.5. this article is already above 'adequate', and i did indeed enjoy it very much. however, i would be forced to abstain were i faced with this current version on VFH, as i don't like the wavering tone. i think that is your main problem: either bring it to an encyclopedic documentary-style article, or a narration of sorts more like the last paragraph. i sense you were hesitant to do anything with the good sentences that were there before you started other than leave them intact, but i don't think that re-arranging them would be a problem. as long as the underlying concept of the article and some content is there, it counts as a rewrite rather than a reboot. i consider alaska and NASA to be rewrites, despite the fact that i kept less than 5% of the existing content, because the stuff that i did keep was pretty good. well, good luck. i am confident, given your reputation for awesome, that this will soon be considered to be a UU classic.|
|Reviewer:||22:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)|