From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Eh, only because this has been sitting here so long, I'll give it a review. Later, though. When my computer stops being convinced half its control keys are being toggled at random, perhaps... anyhow, should be less than 24 hours, give or take a time zone.-- 20100825 - 03:46 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I don't watch television. Ever. So my only background knowledge is from wikipedia. *shifty eyes*
Anyhoo, feeble attempt at a review commencing.
But first, a comment on the current QI article: Er... what? You do seem to choose some good ones to rewrite, don't you... o_O
Okay, now onto the one at hand.
|Humour:||8.6||Did I mention I've never watched this show? I bring this up again to point out that you must have done a pretty good job... as I still found this article ruddy hilarious.
Especially the bit about them going on to wingdings. And the fact that they conveniently ignored Uncyclopedia. And how it's an anti-quiz with contestents just being rude... now I want to watch it. But not enough to buy a telly or install flash. Hells no.
Anyhow, you explain the thing well enough (and accurately enough), that it really lends well to being read by the clueless... if the clueless will even bother reading it. That can be a major problem with something like this; it's cultural and those unfamiliar with the culture tend to avoid. But.. eh.
And of course, I like your links, as usual. Linking to what you really mean; I wish more folks would do this. And that some other folks would do it less, but that's neither here no there. You at least seem to do a decent job of it. Like the Uncyclopedia:About bit... yup, they definitely did rip the thing off. Nutters. And redundancy.
|Concept:||8.2||Mmm, acronym change. Except this not only fit, but you stuck with it and such, and it seems to fairly effectively satirise the idea and presentation of the show (from what little I know), so... yeah.
Most of the concept stuff seems to have wound up under humour, though. And dammit, firefox, stop trying to correct my spellings!
|Prose and formatting:||7.1||Thing reads like an article. Generally a good thing, that... anyhow, didn't notice any major issues. Decently consistent and whatnot, seems to know the audience (although I could be wrong, not knowing it myself), and even manages such that even a clueless person can find it funny, keeps the jokes running, fairly good grammar, etc...
It's also strangely short, but that seems a good thing - little excess clutter, to the point sections, and all very well spaced. Except maybe the last section. You might be able to expand the reception; as a concluding end part it is a mite weak, at least relative to the rest of the thing.
Only other things I noticed:
Panel line up - Why does Mr. Davies not get a sentence to start with like the others do?
And the bit about Mr. Hodgeman... it's just confusing. I have no idea what you mean. I mean, obviously plenty of folks aren't going to get some of this, but it doesn't mean it has to be grammatically ambiguous, either. After all, what part of that is 'only American'? What he makes up, the guy himself, something else?
And you sure have a lot of commas. Unfortunately, this time I couldn't find any that even seem like they're not supposed to be there. There are just a lot. It makes my hair stand up.
And if you just give the thing a thorough read-through you'll probably find anything else it might need, though I suppose you knew that. In fact, it'd be rather strange if you didn't. So I guess I'm just saying it to remind you.
|Images:||8.423||Well, huh. This may well be the best usage of image captions I have seen. Anywhere. I am also beginning to suspect my tea was drugged, because everything keeps seeming gooder and... er, better. I mean better. Agh! No! Must focus...
Okay, first one, simple enough, just the logo, but the caption leads right into the heart of the article concept. The pertinent information, on the other hand, gets a mite strange, but since it's mostly pertinent and summary of the article, the strangeness probably qualifies as humour.
The second is much too accurate. On the other hand, this makes it funnier. Or maybe not funny? Hopefully the former, as I'm not sure what could be done were the latter the case...
The third only makes sense if one remembers the rules, namely the special brand of mocking. But it does rather effectively demonstrate this, which makes me think it would probably do better in the rules section. Maybe swap it with the other one?
|Miscellaneous:||7.3||This seems like an eight. Because it's good. Really. Just proofread it and force even the clueless people to read it, since it's definitely worth it.
On the bright side, even the fact that clueless folks may not read it can easily be put aside as their own damn fault and their own damn loss, so whatever.
|Final Score:||39.623||Good article. Interesting show. I feel less clueless now... but that'll pass.
Anyhow, I'm not sure how helpful this can be, since the blasted thing seems to lend itself to so little improving, but hopefully there will be something. If not, then tell me and I'll... do something. Or don't.
And as usual, don't mind the numbers if you don't want to. I have no idea what they mean. Do you? And don't assume the comments I wrote have anything to do with the section I put them in, as I didn't exactly write this review in any particular order...
|Reviewer:||-- 20100826 - 03:38 (UTC)|