Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/digression

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 05:30, August 16, 2010 by Lyrithya (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit digression

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... ~ Pointy Arajlas *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 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) ~ Pointy Arajlas *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 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 hear read, but you need to make this readable. Break up the blocks, maintain the tone, fix the grammar, and have the article and the digression flow. Transition from topic to arbitrary topic with logical connections (or seemingly logical) and it will become much more smooth; intelligent conversations rarely digress so jumpily, let alone written correspondence. Such things flow from idea to idea as they connect, sometimes focusing on one for an in-depth analysis (like the introduction), sometimes only using a subject as a stepping stone to the next, often until the original is gone entirely. A similar approach here would probably help immensely. If you can make it so that the reader does not even notice that it is off topic, that could make for something impressive indeed.

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).


Also, proofread. 'Of course' is two words. ´ is different from '. Only proper nouns and quotes are capitalised in the middles of sentences. Blead is not a word. Commas can and usually should be used in strangely ordered sentences. Changing subjects three times in the same sentence is generally not a good idea. Start new paragraphs for new ideas... and relate them to the previous ones. Sentences, by nature, are supposed to make sense - "An example would be about ... for instance personal development which is a never ending process and ones progress is hopefully good and heading in a direction you like," does not, for instance.

And other things.


And whyever are the section titles all capitalised save one? Titles normally only capitalise the first letter, but even if you are going to do something odd like this with the section titles, at least do so with all of them instead of leaving one normal, not that they should be all caps at all without some good reason.

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: ~ Pointy Arajlas *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100816 - 05:30 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects