From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
- I intend to review this one day. Like, say, today. I hope. I'm not very good at doing things when I intend to anymore, but I'll get this one done as soon as I can. 18:12, 10 January 2012
The idea, the angle, the grand funny of the article...
|I understand that you, personally, aren't responsible for this... which is good, because it's pretty bad at present. Given what's there, I'd say the best way to fix it up would probably be to start over entirely, unfortunately. You might be able to include some of the ideas you particularly like, I dunno. I can't seem to find muicBut as for what is there... review, review. Yes. Doing.
So what is it? What is the Hypnotoad? Don't assume people have seen the thing, and even if they have, don't assume they know anything about it, because they probably don't, because the thing doesn't say much about it, either. The toad just shows up, keeps showing up, hypnotises people, and generally just sits there. And in this article, the Hypnotoad shows up, keeps showing up, and then hynotises people, all the while just sitting there, which in conjunction with it all being so completely random, makes for a really bad article. The only funny part is the end, where it hynotises people with 'Uncyclopedia is funny', which since this is after an article-worth of complete failure at funny, sort of works. Unfortunately such self-reference is still fairly weak, and while good relative to the rest of it, not enough to save the thing.
Basically, you'll need to get a concept if you want to make a Hypnotoad article, and this one doesn't have one. Encyclopaedically talking about it as it is - a toad that hynotises people - could work just fine, really. Make up the details as the current article attempts to, but unlike the curent, make them make sense, and make them funny. Include actual jokes and stuff. Ones that make sense, that is. Don't use random stuff, because random stuff is not funny.
You should also probably at least mention its relation to Futurama, though were you to amp up its importance a mite, that could even make for the premise of the entire article: Is it why the show came back after being cancelled, or what got the show going in the first place? Is it why all the funny time travel and save the word stuff was necessary? Other big important things? Etc.
Or you could take a completely different approach - what if it's not actually a special toad at all, just a random toad someone picked up somewhere, and through a careful scheme of spiking people's drinks with hallucinogens or something, the idea of a hypnotoad was created and maintained, much to the financial gain of the perpetrator... all a giant scam, or something.
The implementation, how funny the article comes out...
|This is really, really, really random and bad and I don't think any of it makes much sense. It was not a pleasure to read. It was a right ruddy horror, and the sort of thing I would be incredibly happy to VFD under normal circumstances.
The big pile of quotes and lack of introduction to what it even is are also bad.
Except for the Look also at toad at the end. Like I said, that's kind of nice. Were it VFDed, someone might just replace the entire article with that section, and it would probably survive. Should you write a proper article, however, I'm not sure there would be much place for this anymore, as if it's actually funny, why would one need to be hypnotised into finding it funny?
|Prose and formatting |
Appearance, flow, overall presentation...
|Well, the writing is okay, I suppose. There are some typos and grammatical errors, but it's not terrible. The organisation and flow of ideas and whatnot, on the other and, are just lacking. It goes from random to random and from section to section with very little transition, and good transitions are generally necessary even when the ideas and bits of content do make sense together.
As for the layout and overall visual appeal, it's again okay, but not great. Images should probably be more balanced; currently most of the weight is on the left, especially with the ToC also over there. There's also a lot of white space at top and bottom. Losing the quotes and having an actual introduction resolve the top, and the bottom, well... that's mostly just because of what it is, so I'm not sure what could be done about it anyway. Maybe bigger text, or something. And a better-cropped image?
The graphics themselves, as well as their humour and relevance...
|Images of the toad... good. Captions could be better; don't really say much nor make jokes. The propaganda one effectively has two captions, so getting a version of that image without the text on it might be better. What you'll really need, though, are depictions of what's actually going on in the article, with captions to make funnies about it and/or tie them together...
Also, if you're going to have more than one animation, you should probably make sure the rate of eyeball motion matches - currently one is too slow and one is too fast, and neither are actually that close to the actual rate in the show. I could probably fix that if you want, though.
Anything else... or not...
|I don't think I'd be quite so blunt had I thought you'd written this, but... uh... yeah. That's just how it seems to be to me. *shifty eyes*|
|Final score |
01:41, 12 January 2012
|Long story short, I suggest starting over. Sorry I couldn't be of more help, but random nonsense is just not funny, so trying to make random nonsense less bad wouldn't actually help much without making it less nonsensical and/or less random, and the easiest way to do that would probably be to start over, pick an angle, and write your own article.
Hopefully some of this stuff will prove useful, though.