From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Shabidoo 02:58, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
While I'm not sure I'm qualified, I think I might give this a go. I mean, how hard could it be, just a page of digression... or on digression? I never could remember. But I digress...-- 20100815 - 21:46 (UTC)
- by all means PLEASE Shabidoo 01:51, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
- That was my roundabout way of saying I was going to. Which I will. Right now. I swear--oh, look... a birdy! I mean, right now, I'm reviewing. Yes. I am. Really. See? I am! *gestures vaguely* (If it's not done by that time today, though, I'd say feel free to shoot me, but it will probably mean I'm already dead, anyway. Sorry) -- 20100816 - 03:41 (UTC)
|Humour:||5||It is what it is. The problem is, I found this too hard to read to be able to say much here. The idea at least seems sound to me, but the implementation needs work.
One thing I did notice, though, is that while each section digresses within itself, they all still start with the initial subject. This seems a little odd as the sections they follow all end so off topic.
|Concept:||6||Hmm, ye olde article written in the style of its subject... I expected nothing less. On the other hand, the fact that I was expecting it kind of dulls the impact of the fact that it is a digression. That in of itself isn't necessarily a problem, but the article itself does need to rise up and be more than just a digression to be truly funny...|
|Prose and formatting:||4||Honestly, I found this whole thing is rather hard to get through. It's choppy, has large blocks of text with multitudes of ideas, many of which without any apparent connection to or transition from the last, and after the initial encyclopedic introduction to the topic, digresses into what reads not unlike someone stating everything that comes into their head in a monotone without stopping for breath or thought or sense or anything at all.
That doesn't really make for a readable article.
This is probably not what you want to
On that note, it could also conclude itself nicely if it managed to somehow digress back to the original topic of digression, though that's just an idea.
The tone itself is a major issue with this as well. It begins formal, encyclopedic, third and, less formally, second person... but then breaks down into the breathless first and second-person ramble described above. Why can it not keep this encyclopedic tone and format as it wanders so utterly off task? Why does it become so conversational, with Is and mes and yous and contractions and confrontations and all of the disorder of an unhappy six-year-old describing a mostly forgotten day?
This would be so much better if it keeps to the same tone as it has initially even through the digression(s).
And other things.
|Images:||6||Well, the images tie into the text well enough. They just don't stand on their own, and skip a sentence (very easy to do with rambling blocks of text like this) and the reader misses the connection entirely. And not only do they make no sense on their own, save for the family guy one, they're not actually that funny. Ironically, as Peter's thing says, I don't get the jokes in them, assuming there are.
On another note, if you're going to put full sentences into the thumb text, you really should punctuate them properly.
|Miscellaneous:||5||That's about where I feel it is at currently, whatever such a semi-contextual number even means.|
|Final Score:||26||[insert disclaimer that the numbers only have meaning relative to themselves here]
[insert apology for harshness and subsequent excuse along the lines of trying to help or some such here]
[insert mention of hopes that the article might reach its full potential, whatever that means, here]
[insert awkwardness here]
|Reviewer:||-- 20100816 - 05:30 (UTC)|