Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Gamma287/ITW/HowTo:Assasinate a Politician
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
- Eh, I guess I'll do this. 23:00, 20 September 2011
The implementation, how funny the article comes out...
|Firstly I'd like to say thank you for making this nice and narrow; that makes reviewing it on a laptop a lot easier.
That said, you're entirely right about this sort of thing being done before... to the point where I don't even recall having seen any 'this page could not be found' errors that followed that form that weren't joke pages following that form. Perhaps it's an IE thing and that's why, or perhaps that form has simply been phased out of late, or maybe even both, but it is old and done to death. On the plus side, that it has been done to death means that people will probably recognise it even if they've never actually seen it before.
But it's still done to death. I see only one real solution to this, but it's one with a fair amount of options - do something more. Maybe make it match whatever browser the user is viewing it on (I could put in a js to detect that, and frankly I think it would be kind of awesome just for the potential confusion alone). Maybe make an actual article as well, but have there be a random chance of this displaying instead using <choose> tags. Or maybe you could even make this more similar to the default message but then make it out as if some hacker broke in and modified the message to tell you how to deal with how the site/page has been bugged to track anyone trying to access it...
Or even all of the above. Or something else.
What you have here at present is pretty basic. Good twist on how the reader will be found, unlike the page. Not sure why you have the numbers in asterisks - is that common government syntax? How do they normally format such things? And what agency would this pertain to? What of readers outside the US, say, Canadians...
I'm not sure why you're using external links, either, since we have articles on news folks and travel agencies here that would probably make the point more effectively. And who is writing this, at present? What is the memorising the Miranda rights suggestion for? Would the reader need to know it when the agents picking him/her up neglect to mention them? But if that's the case, and the folks aren't going to mention them, why bring it up here? Wouldn't they prefer the subject to not be versed in the things if they're not going to go about proper procedure? And why the mention of 'reading/editing this hilariously satirical 404 error page'? That just doesn't fit. Make it make sense according to who wrote it, and whatever purpose they wrote it for. At present, apparently the government. What I can't sort out is why.
The idea, the angle, the grand funny of the article...
|Eh, overdone approach, but you should be able to make it work. Make it make sense and do something more with it, I'd say. See above, or something.|
|Prose and formatting |
Appearance, flow, overall presentation...
|I already mentioned a lot of this already - the format, links, numbers (respectively: overdone, not sure why you're doing that, and fine if that's how it's done; just make sure it is how it's done if you haven't)... good legalese-ish writing and it does follow form, so... yeah.
I think I saw a typo, though. I can't find it now, possibly for lack of trying, but... er, yeah. One's not that bad and you should be able to find it. Assuming I wasn't imagining it.
The graphics themselves, as well as their humour and relevance...
|Well, you do have an image, though I'm not sure why it's that one... don't really fit, you know? The thing is threatening and proper and from a government - last I checked governments tended to have horrible website design, and replacing an image would probably be beyond them. But seriously, an explosion icon just seems out of character...|
Anything else... or not...
|Final score |
23:43, 20 September 2011
|Eh, do more with this, basically. Could be the start of something grand. One or two or all of those expandy things I suggested could work, or you could do something else entirely, but you'd have to think of that yourself. Regardless, you'll want to make it more consistent with who the author(s) supposedly is/are, and what their intent(s) is/are...
Anyway, hopefully this helps, good luck, and you know where to find me if you have questions, comments, death threats, or want me to do some silliness with the site scripts.