From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
|Humour:||8||*NOTE* For the purpose of this review, the term "self-aware" shall mean "direct fun-making (i.e. "shitty", "obligatory", "eat up airtime") as opposed to subtle ironic sarcasm (i.e. "most compelling account of all", "most scientists doubt", etc.)". I hope this is clear enough. I added this note after writing, just so you know.
Funny as hell - this is a nice piece. I hate ostensibly respectable "scholarly" TV channels and their paranormal pandering shit with a great pretentious passion. In this regard, this article rocks ass.
A couple things, in this section because where else do you put these comments? I think it not pretentious to reckon that precise language enhances humor, especially in this format.
|Concept:||6||Here's where we suffer a bit - what is the pretense here? Is this article a self-aware sarcastic examination of the show, or is it a transcript? There seem to be multiple voices here. And I'm torn regarding which way to go. The intro is funny, snarky and very self-aware, while the rest is subtly snide transcript. Now, I really like the transcript presentation - you are in most cases very subtle with the sarcasm here, and I love it, because it's almost believable as is, with very few and very subtle added snarkiness words. But, there is too much of a difference between this and the sledge-hammer sarcasm of the intro. If we prefer this subtle approach, then all we need to do is tone done the sarcasm there.
Also, if we are to go this route, there are a couple of spots in the transcript where there is too much self-awareness. I'd remove "obligatory" from the bigfoot image caption, and change "to fill up airtime" in the header to something like "for your benefit". On the other hand, if we want to go full-on self-aware sarcasm (which would also rule), then I definitely feel that the transcript section needs more cowbell. I'm just not comfortable with the current identity crisis the article seems to suffer from. Then of course there's your conclusion, which I love, which falls squarely on the self-aware side. So maybe to keep this, despite the fact that subtlety is normally my preference, in this case maybe we should go with more cowbell.
The score 6 then is for a great concept (worth 9) that needs to pick a direction (so you only get 2/3 credit).
|Prose and formatting:||9||I fixed a few minor typos. The language is otherwise very solid.|
|Images:||7||I bet you played a lot back and forth with the left/right locations of the "witness" and "expert" images. Which are all great, and work perfectly. But the placement of them feels iffy, and I bet it was hard to get right. I'm not sure you have it nailed, but this is all useless because I haven't played with it at all yet to where I could provide useful help other than "it's not quite right". I love the images though.|
|Miscellaneous:||8||Averaged and rounded up for good behavior.|
|Final Score:||38||I know I haven't given a solid opinion on the solution to this article's main drawback as I see it, but this is OK because either way you go it will be great. I really think it suffers just slightly as is, with either too little self-awareness in the body as compared to the intro and conclusion, or too much self-awareness overall.|
|Reviewer:||Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 06:38, October 28, 2009 (UTC)|