Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/The Eventual End of Uncyclopedia
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
- This shall be reviewed. By thren, on the hour of blie! 16:43, 25 June 2011
The idea, the angle, the grand funny of the article...
|Well, one thing that cannot very well be said of this is that it lacks concept. It has a lot of concept... or perhaps a lot of concepts, I should say. Arguably too many of them, really. Thing would work a lot better if you would stick more to a one thoughout, or at very least tie the individual ones together more... or perhaps better yet, have an overall and then a bunch of littler ones tied into that, flowing into each other... but as it is, it just jumps around from thing to thing, really, starting out with vague self-referential jokes and not really establishing anything, then talking about someone who got banned, which could potetially turn into something more, perhaps conspiracy or some such, but just winds up with some useless scientists that don't entirely make sense how they got involved in the first place. Then it goes onto the next thing. You do a lot of that, start on ideas that could go somewhere, but you move on too quicky, and you don't transition well, nothing leading up to them. Need to connect them - how do you get from the wiki's reaction to the predictions? Why would we be preparing ourselves for the end when we haven't even been convinced of its reality yet? Or is this trying to do that at all? But if it's not trying to convince us, why is it telling us how? Perhaps a section on how many uncyclopedians have and tend to prepare would work better?
Probably the best section, in my opinion, is the predictions one, though. It has three predictions; even if there's not much to each, they each build off the last, and that flow makes them all better for it. If you could do that throughout the article, it would help immensely, not just with making it a more sensible and/or enjoyable read, but enhancing the jokes as well. They seem largely random as it is, in some cases because they are random, but in others simply because they don't have the set-up to do well. Anyhow, I'll get into more specifics...
The implementation, how funny the article comes out...
|You do have funnies here, or so my brain informs me, but it seems to be more the presentation that fails them. Anyhow, specifics. Yes.
Saying that the end of Uncyclopedia, when on Uncyclopedia, means the end of the wiki one is on, that's just not that funny. Stating the obvious generally isn't unless it's unexpected, but at this point you haven't led your readers to expect anything in particular. So lead them to expect something, and establish what this is about, not what it isn't because people don't know; that 'joke' is so overdone it's just tiresome, especially since we're supposed to be experts, here. We're an encyclopedia, dammit. We know things. Or we say we do. But it's all the same, really.
And what experts? Why do they agree? Why does the question come up? What makes it so important? Details, mon, details! Even if it's the introduction, establish the premise and what's going on; more will of course come later, but being vague is just vague.
As for acting out in-jokes... meh. In-jokes aren't funny. That's sort of the point of the things. Referencing them tends to be less funny, unless you do something special with them, but just mentioning ain't special.
Anyhow, you're ending your introduction on the note of there being many theories, and asking which will be the one... for one thing, what one? And for another, the article as a whole says little about that, generally the introduction introduces the article, not some stuff that is immediately abandoned come the sections.
This just doesn't make much sense. How did this wind up a question for the scientists? What sort of scientists? What have they to do with the random banned user, probably indistinguishable from hundreds of other users that have been banned?
And again you pose questions but go nowehere with them. Use the things to lead up to something, or make a point, or lead up to them going nowehere, but... they just go nowhere. Nothing even special about it. Have them get distracted by something more creative, at very least. For a bad example, I had a group of researchists make considerable progress on something before getting conveniently distracted by a cat that broke into their laboratory in one of my articles; said cat went on to be a recurring motif in the article. You can probably come up with something better, mind, especially seeing as it was one of my first ?pedia articles, of all things, but my point is you needn't be so obvious and cursory.
How to prepare yourself for the end
Why is there suddenly a howto here? Pans are always nice, but I think you're forgetting certain key details, such as the need to also protect your cat from evil psychic influences. That's very important. Although what you have is pretty random. No whys or how a lot of it will help, or relevance of other things... but this whole section being here, or at least where it is, is pretty random, too.
More random. You could do something with the the end is nigh! blokes, something specific to uncyclopedia; how would these different from the other ones? Other than that it doesn't make that much sense. Why would they be making other websites? Or do you mean people blogging about it? Because they might do that. Could also poke fun at the lack of class of these folks, but in a potentially more sophisticated manner than you do throughout this, with that.
Micheal Jackson also seems rather random. Why him as opposed to any other random celebrity? If there isn't any reason for that, then perhaps there shouldn't be a random celebrity at all.
Talking about the users, ha ha they're kids who eat doritos... but seriously, do more. I know you can; you've come up with strangenesses before
I believe a database dump of the pages on Uncyclopedia is about 6GB. 2TB drives are pretty cheap these days, but even the average low-end laptop comes with at least 250GB now, usually a fair bit more. Thus you may want a better paranoid approach. Perhaps some specific disorder - could take some time to mock one.
I said I liked this one, yes? It could probably use some expansion as well, but at least the stupid is the funny sort of stupid - things happen, folks react, more stuff, and it gets steadily sillier - this is good. The Wikia comment, however, isn't apt to mean much to folks. Most don't pay attention to who hosts Uncyclopedia, so unless you establish that better, perhaps with reference to their very... peculiar... coding/ToS/community/etc practices and whatnot, I'd suggest losing that.
First sentence... eh. Second sentence... better. If you could work this into another section, it would probably help, on going in-depth into the theories, perhaps, and when talking about a particularly cataclysmic one that mentions it could happen at any time, that might be better.
Footnotes are a good place for side comments, but they're also definitely not references. Footnotes, man. Also, side comments still out to be funny, especially as folks have to go out ofthe way to find them. Ask yourself, is this worth going out of your way to find? with them... not really worth it with just two, though.
|Prose and formatting |
Appearance, flow, overall presentation...
|This is arguably a prose thing as much as anything else, so I'll say it again. Say more about your topics, and transition from one to the next, don't just stop and go to the next thing. And do it in a logical order. That will help matters considerably. There were also some typos - not too many, but the sort a spellchecker is apt to pick up, so be wary about that.|
The graphics themselves, as well as their humour and relevance...
|These images really don't make sense, thus they don't really help the article much, and nor are they particularly funny. The first is a nebula - effectively giant gas clouds from which denser matter is eventually created; there really isn't much endy about them. A supernova or a black hole or a nice dying dwarf would probably work better if you want something astronomical, but it'd still need something funny other than saying it's what the article is. Some quip or twist about the specifics of the image, perhaps.
The other one makes more sense, except it doesn follow your own directions. No pot, laptop, or corner. Not that other places to hide don't work too, but you're currently kind of contradicting youself. That said, instead of saying 'OH NOES!', a sillily serious explanation of why it's the best place might make it more, well, funny. Once you sort out the contradictions. Or it could be used to explain the contradiction, for that matter.
Also, censoring things is ugly. Usually not that good of jokes, either, seeing as one can see them a mile away and they're just words, single words, generally...
Anything else... or not...
|The amount of tea I went through reading this. No telling what the units are, of course.|
|Final score |
I swear I know what mind this is. The left one, yes? 15:21, 26 June 2011
|this is a pile of words and comments that are hopefully relevant, hopefully helpful, and hopefully not entirely squirming with minnows. Is it true the dreamers hang obtuse? Blimey, it's skard.
There was also a guy who suggested at some point that this article might do very well if turned into a collaboration of many Uncyclopedians, given its... relevant nature. Perhaps different folks doing different sections would facilitate more focusing on each.