From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Any comments of what's there so far, planning on adding a few more sections, too. Any reason why it was deleted?== Undies ==
- This has been here awhile. I shall now try to make it less here. 19:38, 4 July 2011
The implementation, how funny the article comes out...
|I'll start here, since I'm having a hard time pinning down any overall gists of the piece. Humour in each bit, section by section...
I see you start off with some quotes... a fairly common thing to do, but not actually a good idea. They just tend not to help that much unless they actually lead into the article, and these don't - the first just seems completely random, not referring to anything in particular in the article, and the second... well, it's just not funny. Poor Oscar Wilde... anyhow, rape jokes tend not to be unless there's something more to it than just rape. Same with any jokes; they need more than just a subject.
The introduction itself, though, could do more introducing, really. The first paragraph does that - introduces what they are, though it isn't very funny. Doesn't entirely make sense, either - ancestors of those assorted things? If they're the old things, monks are older? But at this point it also doesn't seem to have much basis in reality, at least not any reality with which I'm familiar, which doesn't really help matters. Making stuff up can be fun, but more good humour comes from taking what folks are familiar with and twisting it, than anything else. If this is based on a particular breed of monks, could you perhaps reference them, or link to it, or some such? Or perhaps use a whole pile of different approaches to the idea of 'monks' like you start to do later in the article with the rabbis and the... bible makers, or whatever those are. Could mix in versions from various games like D&D monks that punch things and from movies and whatnot where some of them like to say things like 'he was raised by monks' or some such. Was that what you were referring to with the emperors bit? Making that clearer would probably help.
As for the second paragraph... what? The warriors from the same village raped the inhabitants? If they're going to do that, what's the point in battling it out amongst the other villages, anyhow? Anyhow, this paragraph would probably make more sense in a later section, as it seems a bit too in-depth for the intro.
That first sentence really doesn't help matters. It's just vague and doesn't go anywhere. If it's easy, then go right to that. No need to mention that it is. Same with the youtube; why is that there? A bunch of cavemen singing may be somehow related to the beginning of monks, but surely we don't need to go three minutes of someone else's video to make a point, especially when what the point is isn't even clear. Using a video like this is essentially what is called 'canned humour' - something taken from someone and somewhere else which would probably work better if written out in your own words, or with captions applied to images yourself.
In-breeding, mating hard, more in-breeding, other stuff, mutants, frying the mutants, etc...
What does any of this have to do with monks, exactly? The article is about monks, so in theory, it should all pertain to that, do something for the overall subject and have a reason for being there. If you're trying to lead up to their start that's fine, but you don't need an entire section to do that. Maybe a sentence.
Exactly Right After The Beginning
So this makes more sense; it's more logical and uses a name with which folks'll be familiar, although this portrayal doesn't seem to have much in common with the actual Conan character. Considering that, perhaps another name name work better?
The idea of this scrawny fellow building a wall for privacy is pretty good, though.
Still not entirely sure what this has to do with monks.
Embarrassingly Close To The Beginning
Are 'monks' just freaks in general, then? But that doesn't fit with what you introduced them as, which just makes it all a bit more confusing and disorganised. The examples of the 'modern-day' ones are a nice touch, the sort of thing you'd want to do in general, since folks will recognise them and whatnot, but they don't really help here because they're just not monks. Are they?
Nice And Easy Wins The Race
This section seems to be turning back on the previous ones completely, starting over, sort of. But what do witch-doctors have to do with it, exactly, and why was the spotlight bad for them? And if they were staying out of the spotlight, why would the world regard them at all?
The thing with the bible, however, and what followed make a lot more sense. It's just what leads up to it that doesn't. A lot of it doesn't. More about the events going on between the bible and the new world might be nice, too - what about the medeival monks, who'd do all sorts of weird things at their folks, and whatnot, for a random example.
Another Insufferable Century
The bit about where the robe came from would probably fit better here, since you're talking about their attire and whatnot. That said, most folks wore dresses back in the day, what do you mean? Not only are they a good deal easier to make than trousers, but in a hot environment, they're also less likely to overheat one's genitals, which can be kind of important if one happens to want to reproduce.
Anyhow, why the monkasteries, eh? Why do they gather? And why fortify them?
The idea, the angle, the grand funny of the article...
|...what I said in the introduction section, basically. Work on that, but overall, and make the article fit whatever is introduced. Generally, make it make sense, and present it in a sensible order, whatever you do.|
|Prose and formatting |
Appearance, flow, overall presentation...
|I'd say this needs a proofreading, but it's a little more than that - in a couple places, I wasn't even sure what you were trying to say. The first sentence was actually the most confusing to me: Believed to be ancestors of the old Witch Doctors, Fortune Tellers and Emperor's whom possess a close relationship with a higher deity, monks arose around the time Genghis Khan was playing Battleships with the whole Western Europe. I'm not sure if you meant it in this order or the other way around, but you also need commas to separate your clauses, and unless things are proper nouns, you generally oughtn't be capitalising them in the middle of a sentence. Also, pluralising things with an apostrophe is just all manner of wrong.
Another confusing sentence: Being in the spotlight, as were their predecessors; the Witch Doctors, didn't bode well for these people. This seems to contradict the previous one I mentioned, saying instead that the witch doctors came before the monks, but regardless, you're saying that being in the spotlight didn't go well for both of them, yes? Phrase it more like 'Like their predecessors the witch doctors, monks soon found that being in the spotlight did not go well for them.' Or some such. Simpler sentence, follows from what comes before. Contrary to what some people might think, complex is not necessarily a good thing. Clarity is better.
Basically, just read through it all and try to make it more fluid - phrases following from previous ones, not complicating themselves, that kind of thing. It may help to read it aloud, too. If it seems twisty, try to untwist it, and where you stop for breath, use that to consider the placement of your commas...
The graphics themselves, as well as their humour and relevance...
|Your images are really kind of random, unfortunately. The introduction image appears to have nothing to do with the introduction (sure, he's a monk-like character, but not what you're making monks out to be), and believe in what? Aside from the mention of a relationship with a higher deity (a mention, I might add, that does not appear to follow through in the rest of the article), there's not terribly much to believe in. The nature of the image indicates it's the monk that should be believed in, however, as he may inflict a fair amount of damage otherwise, but it's also not funny. If it's an image like that, use the caption to make it funny, some quip about the circumstances of the image, or an irony, or some such.
The gonad one... well, the section's about a Conan, not a Gonad. That image was 'chopped specifically for another article, I believe, so you may want to upload a clean image for this. But why would folks believe he looked like that, anyhow? Wasn't he supposed to be pale?
The nude slaves one is really vague - Cleopatra is mentioned in passing, so why is there an image about something about her rule?
The one from the underground pyramids is cute, though - perhaps you could do a little more with it, though, say what the context is, what it supports, what's important about it? Also, may want to move it up, since on wider screens it winds up going down a good way past the end of the text.
Anything else... or not...
|Final score |
20:38, 5 July 2011
|I know this looks bad, but your main problems seem to be the organisation and just what you're doing with it in general. Once you sort out the latter and make it more consistent, the former should be a lot easier to fix up, and putting in specific jokes and whatnot should also come more easily. Keep working with it; you have a definite start here, but it does need more work.
Anyway, I hope this helps and good luck. If you have any questions, comments, concerns, or death threats, feel free to stop by my talkpage.