From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
220.127.116.11 01:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
|Concept:||4.5||The article is trying to have a concept, but it is way to random, or I should say "all over the place" for how brief it is. It looks like a purged rambling article. A rambling article is one whose sections are very weakly related, and often "mini articles" in themselves because the article was written by a dozen people with little or no attempt to keep the entire article consistent.|
The article needs to be toned down a good bit, some of the randomness needs to be removed, and it needs a serious fleshing out. For example, "The word "Trekkie" is actually a Latin word meaning "He who has no life."" probably should go, its too random. The Origin and Trekkism section have some potential, although I'd get rid of stage 4. The habitat section should either be removed or turned into a paragraph. As a rule, paragraphs a better than lists. Lists have a tendency to evolve into collections of random items and filibustering (wasting space for the sake of making an article look longer). When editing a list, always ask yourself this: does the reader actually want to read the entire list? Now, I'm not saying lists are never good, but they should be used in moderation.
Your chief issues will be fleshing out the article and making it consistent. If I work to take the unfunny & random bits out, I would only have about a large paragraph worth of text. Consistency is basically the ability of an article to be mentally processed coherently by a reader. Not only does the article need to not engage in blatant contradiction, the article also needs to stay "tame" enough and on the same subject enough that the reader can process it without being mentally overwhelmed.
Finally, when writing or editing an article, go for the overall quality of the article, not the quality of one specific section. When improving or adding material, ask yourself, does this help the whole article, or only part of it at the overall quality of the article? The reader (in theory) will read the whole article, not just random bits.
|Prose and Formatting:||6||I did a clean-up of the article on spelling, grammar, red links, and some formatting issues. It still has some ugliness issues due its listy look. The score is for after my corrections, it would have been about 4.5 before I corrected it.|
To fix your spelling errors, use Firefox, it has a build in spell checker. It isn't perfect,and does flag some correct words as typos, but it does get most of the errors. And, only n00bs use Internet Explorer.
As a rule, you should have no red links whatsoever in your article. The only exception is if the red link is part a joke. Red links make your article look ugly and unkempt to most experienced uncyclopedia readers. Having all blue links makes your article look like its maintained by someone who knows what their doing.
The list was formatted wrong, you should generally use the bulleted list format that was used for the "See Also" section, or some other standard wiki format. Also, you had too much white space, caused by too many blank lines in places. As a rule, you should only have one space after a section head.
Your article still has a little ugliness due to the listy-ness of the article. Also, your section headers are too close together, if you flesh the article out, they should go away by the increased amount of prose. Finally, your "See Also" section way way too long, especially for an article of that length. The See Also section shouldn't be turned into a random list. (Well, it is a list, but it should be a list of actual links to related articles, not a list of funny things. Some humor in the See Also is ok, but its primarily a structural section, not a humor section, and definitely, not another list of one liners.)
P.S. also make your you have a few links per paragraph throughout the article. Always try to link to related topics if possible, if not, linking to "random" words is ok. And remember to not overuse links, and occasional cluster (when several related topics actually are first mentioned at the same time) is fine, but don't link every other word in paragraph after paragraph.
|Images:||5.5||The first image and third image are MS Paint edits. They are, as a rule not funny. You should be able to find funny pics of real trekkies. These cheap knock-offs give your article a really amateurish look to it. Also, the 2nd pic is also not a Star Trek pic, and has not caption. You should have at least one "good" pic of the subject matter, i.e. an actual pic of the subject matter. Other pics can, and often should, be more outlandish or silly.|
|Humour:||2.8||Overall Score:3.0 The article really isn't that strong in the way of humor. It relies too much on the same blunt jokes being recycled over and over. It is ok to have a theme throughout your article, but your not using these ideas in a very funny way. See Uncyclopedia:Best of for some examples of good articles and HTBFANJS for some tips on writing. Simple attacking or mockery without wit and satire is not funny.|
Intro: 2 You come on way to strong here, and its really not very funny. The intro sets the tone, and is generally the easiest part to write well. Generally, its best to go with deadpan entry, (that is why I generally don't like quotes, they ruin the deadpan before it starts, but I digress). For examples of deadpan entry, followed by the funny breaking of said deadpan, see Martin Van Buren and George Washington Carver.
Origin: 3 This section lacks wit, and, strangely, starts out random and goes almost wikipedia-tone after the 2nd sentence. The concept here is alot stronger than the delivery of the humor.
Trekkism: 3.5 This has some funny parts, but is way too random. You should get rid of stage 4, its probably the some random off-the-wall thing in the article. Like the previous section, this one has much stronger concept than its humor delivery.
Habitat: 2.5 This has some potential if it is rewritten as a paragraph and fleshed out. Also, the ==See Also== needs a serious pruning, insulting the reader generally isn't funny.
Note, total score is overall and sections averaged, with overall score getting double weight, rounded to the nearest 10th.
|Improvability Score:||4.5||This article has potential, but will need alot of work. It should be (relatively) easy to improve, but you still have a long way to go yet. Good luck|
|Final Score:||23.3||Try getting a username. Post users tend to respect even the most inexperienced user much more than any ip.|
|Reviewer:||--Mnbvcxz 07:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)|