From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
- Okay, but you're not going to like it. 18:11, 13 November 2011
The idea, the angle, the grand funny of the article...
|There doesn't appear to be a concept. I have no idea what NAKJ is, and the page gives no indication to that end; it doesn't even visibly display anywhere that that is the title, at least not that I noticed; the first title line says 'Livejournal'. This doesn't seem to have much to do with livejournal, though. In fact, it doesn't seem to have much to do with anything at all, just random stuff thrown onto a page. Your signature, various templates, images, etc, the cabage, pieces of people's userpages and other userspace stuff, last year's banner templates, some ascii art, fake links, animated images, an article I started writing and never finished...
As for why it is all here, and what you expect me to be reviewing, I really don't know, and as such I do not know what to suggest. Sorry.
The implementation, how funny the article comes out...
|The funniest thing about this is probably how much it slows down my browser as I scroll down. The chewing thing is subsequently quite useful, as when the browser slow, the animation likewise slows, giving an indication of how much slower the entire thing is probably going. Other than that, though, the entire thing is just a mess of random stuff. If you want something to be funny, a good place to start would be not random stuff. And jokes. And a concept. Actual content generally helps too, which is why we generally wind up with less-contenty articles on VFD. This, however, is not actually an article, so it has that much going for it. Just keep it in your userspace, will you?|
|Prose and formatting |
Appearance, flow, overall presentation...
|It has some rather interesting formattings in it, though none of them really do much for the overall besides slow down some sections more than others. And it's all just pieces taken from elsewheres, pretty much, isn't it? This is your lab, it says, though, so you probably did some of it, but what? It's all pretty mushed together. You do a lot of things that are a general no-no on most pages, though - it's quite long, it has repeating templates, large animations, other pages mixed into it, it's signed, it has red links, fake links, pointless categories, unrelated content, a very nice-looking young lady, rastor images blown up past their optimal sizes, fixed and absolute positioning, buggy css, and ref errors. And possibly some other things, but you get the idea.
On the plus side, I'm pretty sure you know better than to do any of that on an actual article, so there's that much. And if you didn't know, now you do or something.
The graphics themselves, as well as their humour and relevance...
|There are quite a few images on here, most of which have little to do with anything. A lot of them are pretty funny on their own, or just pretty pretty, and one of those got me thorougjly sidetracked, but that's probably not a good thing.|
Anything else... or not...
|Actually, this does raise some concerns - these contents, there doesn't appear to be any attribution to the original authors of the pieces - license aside (and apparently it require attribution), it would also just be polite to do so, you know?|
|Final score |
22:40, 13 November 2011
|Sorry I didn't have anything nice to say. I really have no idea why you put this up for a review, let alone what it even is, and as such reviewed it accordingly. I do find the resulting colours rather pretty, however.|