Right, seeing as the queue is back to a nice, manageable level, I figure it may be time to get this looked at, with a view to trying to tie it all together somehow. This article may sound somewhat schizophrenic, if so, that's because Cajek, Gerry and me rewrote it in a fit of Lobster love some time ago, in an evening, and without really bothering to try and integrate our different styles. The result is this. Question is: d'you think there's an easy way to tie it all together, or should we just leave it as the "interesting" clash of styles that it is? PEEING members preferred please. --UU - natter08:48, Oct 15
I'll get round to it at some point this afternoon. Halp is on teh way? --ChiefjusticeDS 09:42, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
Now I hate decimal scores but this article has driven me to give one. The main reason for this is that the humour is excellent throughout and is exactly what I would expect from 3 talented Uncyclopedians. The main problem is related to what you mentioned in your review request, that it sounds schizophrenic. Now I when I set out to read the article, I looked out for this problem, and as such, the joins as it were, were more visible, but I didn't think they effected the article's enjoyability as a whole that much. My main problem was that there is no definitive direction for the article's humour to go in. Like a cheese and pickle sandwich all the parts are highly enjoyable separate, but they work best together. Your humour, as I said, is superb but isn't as good as it could be because there doesn't seem to be an exact running joke for the article within the text. There are the interlude sections where the article addresses the reader, but within the text itself there isn't much continuity. This, I feel, not only identifies where your problem manifests itself, but also provides a the solution. Someone needs to go through the article and find a way to connect all the sections together, or at least most of them, with a joke. You do have jokes that move in this direction and occur a couple of times throughout the article, but never really enough and often only in the sections which I suspect were authored by one of you. You can either make an attempt to extend this idea through the other sections or you can create a completely new joke for them. I'm not going to try and prescribe a joke for you, but I, personally, think that the best thing for you to do is to work with the existing jokes, they are all working in their individual sections and thus can easily be expanded across. The only other concern I have with regard to the humour is that the jokes sometimes seem a bit random and as though they have just suddenly been chucked in. Most guilty of this is the section "Great Lobster Near-Misses in History" where the jokes could just use a bit of a tidy up, and to be made slightly more concise in a couple of cases and to generally be grounded in the section better. This is me nitpicking though, but you deserve that for making me hand out a decimal score (I will now have to equalise it later on).
Your concept is fine and for the most part the execution is fine too. The problem is that the style differences entail a certain degree of tonal difference. This isn't beyond fixing however. The most noticeable aspect is that while the article is written in an informal tone this is sometimes taken much further than seems to be the established tone; examples of such exceptions are some of the random occurences of profanity in the narrative and sometimes a piece of narrative that doesn't seem to fit. However these are very very minor problems.
Prose and formatting:
There are virtually no problems with your spelling and grammar here and the main thing needing fixed is your image formatting. Just spread the images out a bit, as they are mostly clustered around the top and middle of the article, leaving the bottom half pretty sparse in comparison. Otherwise no problems here.
There are no problems with the images themselves and the mark is lost here for your formatting difficulties.
My overall grade of the article
Your article is excellent and really involving despite not having an instantly fascinating subject to talk about. The problems that I have found are mainly ones that you had identified already with regard to tying the article together. I have given the way I think that this can be accomplished. Besides that problem all you need to do is give the rest of the article a quick polish to make sure it is the best it can be. Find me on my talk page if you have any queries or comments about this review. Well done to everyone who was involved in writing this one, and good luck making any edits.