From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
It is a rewrite, if that makes a difference to the reviewing... thehallway 16:14, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
I got this one. --—John Lydon 12:28, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
|Humour:||6||Right, I think what you have here is a giant step up from the previous article in terms of humor, content, and overall coherency. I still think there is a little ways to go in order for this article to be considered solid. I’m going to try and break down each section in order to explain all the hits and misses that I can.
Section 1 – Intro
I felt like your intro was very solid content wise. Humor wise, we don’t get a whole lot of laughs here. That’s okay though, because intro’s aren’t usually that funny. They have the more important task of informing the reader just what it is they’re about to read. I felt like you did a good job with this. My only nitpick with this section is that I don’t really get the final link. Maybe it’s because I’m a damn dirty yank who doesn’t speak the Queen’s English, but I have never heard of a Freddo. And I sure as heck didn’t know it was slang for chocolate. Again, this is just nitpicking, but I would think there would be a more commonly used term that you could substitute here. Other than that, I really felt like your intro did a great job of setting up the concept of your article.
Section 2 – Taxonomy
It took me a while to put my finger on exactly what bothered me about this section. After I realized what it was, I noticed that it was a recurring trend throughout the entire article. So, in an effort to save us both some time, I going to state my gripe here but tell you that it goes for the rest of the article as well. As a reader, I really felt like the scientific explanations were laid on a little thick. I fully understand that your angle for this article appears to be defining marshmallows as a living, breathing species, but it is just a little much. After a while, I felt like I was watching a National Geographic special. I guess that means you really nailed the angle of presenting marshmallows as a living organism, but National Geographic specials are rarely funny except for when they show two turtles doing it. I think you can remedy this overly scientific vibe by occasionally reminding the reader that marshmallows are in fact, just marshmallows. Allow me to explain with an example. In this section you state “orange Marshmallows live on a diet of tigers, etc. No such estimate has been scientifically proven as of yet, with Marshmallows as a species generally being considered nothing more than unimportant snacks.” While there is nothing wrong with this statement, something like “orange marshmallows live on a diet of tigers, etc. This theory is scoffed at by many in the scientific community who cite the fact that marshmallows have no mouths, arms, or legs, thereby making it nearly impossible for them to eat a tiger.” My example isn’t going to get any laughs on it’s own, but mixing little doses of reality like that in throughout the article will help balance out the scientific angles and add to the overall humor.
Section 3 – Lifestyle
I felt like this section is the specific point in the article where things start to come loose a bit. The reason I feel that way is because I felt like you started to reach for humor a bit here, which contradicts the previous two section’s straightforward, scientific vibe. Allow me to explain. The first thing I noticed was you explained that the marshmallows natural enemy appeared to be the chubby bunny. There’s nothing wrong with that, but you just drop it there. As a reader, I want to know know more. Why do the chubby bunnies hunt marshmallows? How do they do it? Expanding on this topic would not only help to tie the section up in a nice little bow for the reader instead of feeling like something you just threw in for a chuckle, it’s also an oppurtunity for some really solid humor. The next area I had trouble digesting was the line “The most conclusive evidence for intelligence in Marshmallows would be the frequent publicity stunts they perform when they desire a law change; to ensure success, violence is often relied upon.” This sentence not only is asking the reader to make the leap of logic that marshmallows are somehow violent instead of tasty and fluffy, but it also contradicts your opening line of “Marshmallows have yet to adopt a stable political system, resulting in anarchy.” Anarchy is the absence of order, purpose, or standard. After telling me marshmallows are anarchists, I’m supposed to believe they are suddenly politically active and concerned about laws? I know it seems minor, but if your trying to sell this article as an in depth, scientific looks at marshmallows, contradicting yourself is a killer. Finally, I felt like the link in this section feels a bit forced. I really got the impression that is was included simply to showcase a funy image, not to support the article itself. The reason I feel this way is because it again contradicts what you had previously written. You explained to us that marshmallows are basically small, soft, armless, legless, little things that humans and bunnies love to eat. Now we’re told that in some cases, giant marshmallows have been known to roast humans over a fire? It really is a funny image, but I think it does more harm than good.
Section 4 – Political Activism
If section 3 is where things start to come loose, then this section is where the wheels fall off. In the same style as the campfire link, you again point to marshmallows killing people. Well technically, you point to them killing politicians, which we all no are not technically human. In any case, I have a difficult time wrapping my mind around a group of marshmallows throwing someone into a vat of marshmallow crème. It just doesn’t work for me. On a positive note, the very idea of a marshmallow suicide bomber had me chuckling. I would like to see you expand on that idea rather than go off on the political genocide tangent. I want to say this entire section feels out of place, but I think it’s just the contents and the way they are delivered to the reader that need tweaking. I think this section would be a riot if you would try to relate some of the “protests” by the marshmallows to what people commonly know about marshmallows. For instance, maybe the marshmallows set themselves on fire in protest and jump into people’s mouths, burning their tongues in the process. Or maybe they chip away at people’s teeth, causing them sever tooth pain. Something along those lines would make this section so much better. Like I said the potential is there, you just need to tweak the delivery a little.
Section 5 – Sex
To be perfectly honest, I only understood about half of what I read in this section. I was really looking forward to reading your ideas on marshmallow sex, but I just couldn’t grasp what you were saying. I think you may have went a little overboard on the medical jargon in this section. Maybe this again points to my being a damn dirty yank who doesn’t speak so good, but seeing all those 5 dollar words in one place made me cry. I don’t really know what advice to give here because I really, truly didn’t comprehend half of it. It’s not fair for me to tell you to “dumb it down” either, because maybe I’m the dull knife in the drawer, so to speak. So I really have nothing much for this section other than the fact that I liked how you mentioned dolphins at the end. The thought of two dolphins banging made me laugh.
|Concept:||7||I like the approach you took on this subject. Taking a seemingly ho-hum item such as a marshmallow and giving it life like qualities is a cool concept. As I stated in the humor section, I really feel the scientific aspect may have been laid on a bit too thick.
After reading the previous history of this article, before you started editing it, I really feel you have brought this article a long way. But it’s going to take a little more to make it a strong entry. I would suggest looking over the previous history for some ideas. I think that version was very random and borderline gibberish, but there were some ideas that, if carried out properly, would have worked well.
|Prose and formatting:||6.5||No issues with the formatting. Spelling appears solid, (although I couldn’t spell half the words you used if my life depended on it), and the page looks nice, aesthetically speaking.
Your prose could use a little tweaking though. I felt like the sections could have flowed together a little better. For some reason, I find it easier to understand things if given an analogy, since I’m an arrogant prick who thinks my way is the best way, I’m going to lay one on you to try and illustrate my point. Imagine your article as a TV set. An ideal article would read like a TV show. Each section follows the main plot. I felt that reading your article was like channel surfing. Each time I hit a new section, it was like starting a new show. I have no idea if that makes sense to you, but it does to me so it stays. With your particular subject, it’s kind of hard to lace a storyline or common theme throughout the entire article other than “these are marshmallows, here’s what they do.” In order to make the entire piece flow a little smoother for the reader, I would suggest building up to each section in the previous one. You do a good job of this between sections 3 and 4. The last line of section 3 dovetails perfectly into the topic of section 4. I think the article could really benefit from trying to apply this to all sections.
|Images:||5||Not a whole lot happening in this area. The images aren’t out of place, but they aren’t exactly funny either. I really don’t think overly goofy images would work on this article though. If your going for a Discovery channel type feel, a goofy image would throw it all out of whack. So, after weighing all the evidence, I’m going to split this one down the middle. There not funny images, but then again, funny images wouldn’t really work. Quite a conundrum.|
|Final Score:||30.6||I really think your on the right track with this one but you’re not quite there just yet. I hope that some of the mindless ramblings in this review will help give you an idea of how to polish this article up. I would advise against any dramatic changes, because what you have is a pretty solid base that just needs a few coats of wax to make it shine. (I have no idea why I just used 3 wax references).|
|Reviewer:||--—John Lydon 16:33, September 16, 2010 (UTC)|