From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
This is Best Of material. Well, I hope it is. If not, I'll clean it up. InMooseWeTrust 00:34, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- I can probably get this, although it might not be finished until tomorrow. I'm sleepy now. --Black Flamingo 00:15, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
|Humour:||5||Hi there. In my opinion this article still needs a bit of work to get it into good shape, but I think I have a few good suggestions that should help you with this.
There are two main problems with your style of humour as far as I can tell. The first is that it is overly random. I'll give you a few examples of what I'm talking about; references to Kong the first, paedophiles and other similar jokes are not really funny. Nor are unebelievable claims like "Franz Ferdinand invented links" or that "links are used as a form of currency". My issue with randomness is that there's very little thought behind it. A good joke incorporates relevant elements of the subject and satirises them accordingly. Like it says in HTBFANJS, the truth is often much funnier than making up random crap. Stuff like this is interchangeable. You say Colonel Sanders assaulted Oscar Wilde with a link, for instance, but it could have easily been Chairman Mao assulting Darth Vader, or Jesus, or Rita Hayworth, and it wouldn't have been any more or less funny. Do you see why this is more disappointing than humorous? Try to keep pointless namedropping to a minimum. Don't be afraid to talk about people who are actually involved with hyperlinks (if anyone), even if you have to spend a while introducing them. It will be worth it if you can get some real satire at their expense. I also suggest you have a think about what is funny about hyperlinks, and talk about that rather than inventing absurd histories that could easily be transplanted into an article on any subject. Read HTBFANJS and totally revise your nonsensical history sections.
While we're on the subject of random humour, let's talk about Uncyc cliches. Random humour in itself has become a sort of cliche around here, but there are a few other things that constantly crop up, and unfortunately you do fall into some of those traps. Opening quotes are such a pitfall. I don't know if you've ever noticed but the articles on UN:BEST rarely have opening quotes, and when they do it's usually one or two at most. I certainly wouldn't recommend you have more than two, and even then they'd have to be ridiculously funny. The thing about the opening quotes in this article is that they don't really add anything. In fact, I'd say they detract from the quality. Most of them don't even seem to be jokes, with the possible exception of the Captain Obvious one (but that joke stopped being funny about 5 years ago). Other cliches here include references to the space-time continuum collapsing (seriously, I see that in like, every noob article) and attempts at breaking the 4th wall. 4th wall breaking humour is very, very hard to get right, and pretty much the whole Implementation section suffers from it. It's "obvious nonsense", if you know what I mean, and also a tad unfocussed (you're supposed to be talking about hyperlinks here, not paragraphs or headers). For an excellent example of "imaginitive nonsense", take a look at this article. It should give you a better idea of how to be silly and still be funny.
Also, what's with the "toes" thing? You seem to be saying "toes" instead of "to", and I just found it a bit perplexing. Maybe you could try and make it clearer why you're doing that. The Java section also made no sense to me. That might be because I know nothing about Java, although I still couldn't see any jokes in there.
Right, so the second problem with your humour is that it's too cursory. There is very little depth to a lot of your jokes, and you rush through them without taking the time you explain them. Just about every point you make is little more than a brief summary, a sentence long at most. Just to give you an example, you say they were invented by Franz Ferdinand, then that's the end of the joke and you move on to the next one. You need to expand on this. Why did he invent them? What led him to do this and what were the repurcussions? Why were links seen as "comic gold"? And most importantly, what is funny about all this? It's not just this line either, you treat all your jokes this way. This rushed style is hard to follow, it reads like a long list of random punchlines. Of course, it's unlikely your reader will find this funny (would you laugh at a random punchline with no build up?). It's the same with your lists. Lists generally are not funny, again they tend to skim over jokes without fully explaining them, and they're usually quite predictable. HTBFANJS advises against them. Once you've had a go at getting rid of the randomness, try and expand on your jokes. If they're just one sentence long, like the one about sausage links not being tasty, no one's going to laugh because it just comes out of nowhere. The prose has to flow from one line to the next, it has to build and build and set up jokes, then you go for the punchline.
|Concept:||6||The idea of hyperlinks being a kind of link with a mental disorder was interesting but you didn't really explore it. To be honest I'm not really sure how far you can go with it though, since it's a bit silly (insofar as links aren't alive and don't have emotions). Of course, feel free to see if you can explore this concept further, tie down all the randomness so every line is related to your underlying concept. I'd definitely like to see you try this, but I do have doubts about it's potential. If worst comes to worst you could always try thinking of another angle for the article, although that would mean an almost total rehaul so I understand if you don't want to.|
|Prose and formatting:||6||The biggest problem here is probably with consistency. Like your humour, your prose are sort of all over the place. In your intro for instance, you say "Hyperlinks are found in basic website design, where links are unable toes concentrate, constantly moves around and has poor performance compared toes others". Can you see the error here? You switch between plural and singular, it should be "move around" and "have poor performance" since you're talking about hyperlinks in general and not just an individual one. There are also slips in person; the Treatment and Diagnosis sections suddenly become second person whilst the rest of the article has been mostly informative and in third person. Give the thing a good proofread, maybe try reading it aloud or pasting it into a spelling and grammar checker like MS Word or something. I always find that if you simplify sentences as much as possible, the errors in things like tense, person and shifts in tone become a lot more obvious. So try to imagine your sentences without their clauses, if it helps.
Ok, just a note about formatting; a lot of it is kind of scruffy. While the aforementioned opening quotes don't help, I would also suggest getting rid of the massive template at the top. I don't really think it adds anything, do you? It's also hard to follow. Then for the end of the article, ending on three big lists isn't a good idea. This makes the article look very scruffy indeed, and about 70% of the links in there aren't even relevant. I personally try to avoid See Also sections unless I need some space at the end of an article. As a general point on these matters; just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should. You should never have opening quotes, templates or See Also sections simply for the sake of having them. They're just gimmicks really, and most users are tired of them. Only use them if the article really requires it.
Just a last point for prose/formatting; if you're going to go for the whole making every word a link idea, wouldn't it make more sense for every word to be an actual hyperlink? A lot of them are red links (although having said that, maybe they count, I'm not sure).
|Images:||0||You have none. While that makes my job easier I also recommend you sort that out.|
|Miscellaneous:||5.5||My gut feeling.|
|Final Score:||22.5||Ok, so overall a good effort, I notice that I failed to mention that this is much better than most of the articles that employ this kind of random, rushed humour. And there are some very interesting ideas in here conceptually, I just wish you'd develop them a little more. I hope you're not to disappointed with my review, I know some of my comments seem harsh but I'm just trying to get you to put in that extra little bit of work that this article needs before it will look finished. So yeah, take another look at the randomness, the cursory nature of the jokes and the scruffiness, and I'm sure you'll have a good article on your hands in no time. If you want me to explain anything I've said here or look at anything more specific, please let me know and I'll see what I can do. I hope the review helps.|
|Reviewer:||--Black Flamingo 11:17, October 16, 2010 (UTC)|