User:Under user/judgifying notes
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
edit My criteria:
- Best illustrated article = article where the pictures best fit the idea. In theory, it could be all images (see Jimmy And The Aliens from last time) or a regular article with particularly well-chosen images that significantly add to the article.
- It has to make me laugh.
- On first look, it helps if it makes me want to read all of it.
- The pictures have to be well made, for the idea (ie if the intention is to look shabby and hand-drawn (again, see Jimmy And The Aliens) it should be consistent in style, and make sense in context (an intentionally bad image can still be badly done). If that makes no sense to you, it does to me, and they're my criteria, not yours!
- That's yer lot. Let's get judgifyin'
First impression: Hmm, 3 pics, and they're kinda big, with very little text, although that doesn't count against it. Still, the title makes me want to read on, so yeah, fine. Tick.
In-depth look: Okay, let's see... Well, the concept is kinda intriguing, but doesn't stay consistent. If the book is "Where's The White House?" the pics should all feature The White House, for me. So Condi and Dubya coming in moves away from that. Doesn't make it a bad article, but the title doesn't work.
The images themselves aren't excellent. The first is kinda blocky, like it's quite low-res, and the White House stands out a bit as an obvious edit. It's not hugely badly done per se, and if it was better integrated, it may be too hard to find, but it's not brilliant, and there's nothing funny about it. It may have been better to get something more small-scale, a bit closer in, and have the house maybe looking like it's hiding behind another, poking out a bit or something.
The second is also blocky, which makes it harder to see. It's also not really amusing - a bunch of people sitting down at a convention or something. No chuckles there.
The third one isn't bad - Bush is a bit sharp compared to the rest, a bit more work on contrast and blurring could have helped, but it did make me laugh. I like this pic.
The article itself is short, and all about the pics, really. Good captioning, or decent explanatory prose would help, but nothing about the first two makes me laugh. Just saying Condi is a commie isn't that funny of itself. Neither of the first two pics are well set up or used.
The third one, however, kinda works a bit. It's certainly better, and got that chuckle from me.
Overall then, feels like it needs a more consistent focus. Perhaps a "where's the Politician?" approach, with Obama, Hillary, Bill and so forth in appropriate situations, and slightly harder to find, with the Dubya one at the end as the punchline? I don't know. What I do know is that this is OK, but feels like it needs more work to really, um, work!
- Final image made me laugh.
- First two images don't make me laugh.
- Text adds nothing to the article - feels unfinished.
Final decision: Fourth. It just doesn't feel finished, and one laugh from three images, and none from the text is the worst return of the four. I do like the last image, but not enough to put this above the others. I would, however, love to see the rest of this brought up to match the chuckle standard of that last pic.
First impression: Woah, 2 pics. And quite a short article. Looks unfinished on first glance. Odd title too, what's that about? Want to read on just to find out, so ticks this box.
In-depth look: Yup, feels unfinished too. It's an intriguingly off-the-wall idea, and was interesting enough to make me read through it, but at the end I felt it was just really getting started. I'm sure there could be more scope for fun with this article - different types of sausage, for instance (do different meats party differently? What about skinless sausages? Are there cultural differences between the parties of Bratwurst, Frankfurter, Cumberland and Salami?)
I liked the idea of sausages as deeply depressed fatalists, and the conversation line. I like the slight surreality of what happens to Ignatius. I smiled while reading this, but didn't really chuckle. Hmm.
The pics: there are two, which is about right for this length of article. The first, though, is just a plate of sausages, some looking a bit pinker than the others. The caption tried to justify it, but it seemed a bit of a vanilla addition, as opposed to something that enhances the article. Perhaps some tell-tale party traces such as streamers might have helped or something. Or some liquid somewhere, seeing as they're supposed to be drinking, according to the caption? The second one is quite charming, which jars with the first, but fits the article much betterer. I like the second one.
- I like the second image, I can almost see the sausage bounce in the air to click some metaphorical heels.
- Slightly surreal idea, which I like.
- First image is just a plate 'o bangers.
- Feels half-done.
Final decision: Third. Feels half-finished. One image charmed me, one didn't, and I left it not wanting more, which would have been a good thing, but feeling like there should have been more, which is less good.
First impression: Good title, you have a pretty good idea what to expect, and yup, looks like that's what we're getting. I'm intrigued to see where this goes. Tick.
In-depth look: OK, so this is one where the images pretty much are the article. The main purpose of the intro is to set up the pics that follow. As such, it does the job. As for the pics, well...
Intentionally low quality images - it's a joke done before, of course, but there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't remain consistent throughout, but that's explained early on and is clearly intentional as a result, so can't hold that against it.
What I can say is that it amused me. Denny, the large car (with Gangsta Action), and especially the tricycle make me chuckle. And Awesomely High Res blah blah man was a fun ending.
As an idea, it's quite fun, and executed pretty well. It does have similarities with Jimmy and the Aliens from last time, but it's a different enough concept to stand alone.
- Consistently inconsistent visual style.
- It is 100% about the pictures. Without them, it has nothing. OK, see my criteria, that's not necessarily a problem, but I have to mention it.
Final decision: First. Simply put, it made me laugh the most. I got more chuckles from this than any of the other three, and that makes it the winner for me.
First impression: Uh-oh, NFL? I know so little about that, hope this doesn't require any prior knowledge or I could be fucked. Unfair to hold that against it if that is the case, but on a personal level, I'm nervous! Still, the pics give me an initial inkling of what it could be about, so I want to read to see if I'm right. That's a tick then.
In-depth look: Ah, good, I was right, I think I got the idea there. Hmm. Well, this is certainly the most texty of the articles. This is most certainly an article with illustrations instead of an article of illustrations. So this is about how good an article it is, and how well the images enhance that.
The article: Pretty good. so what we have here is a suicidal play, which would probably best translate to 0-0-10 in footie. And it's developed by a bunch of no-hopers, and completely fails. It's thereafter used by a dominant team when they're already up and cruising, and its only success is a freakish accident. It uses the technique of undermining the prose with the fact, which I've always enjoyed, plus the old sports story prop of using a new tactic when faced with seemingly hopeless odds is subverted a bit, which is kinda fun, and there are several nicely surreal moments (Squid Boy's ultimate fate in particular) that tickled me.
There are also some duller patches. The bit about opposing teams showing up late felt particularly leaden to me. Oh, and then at the end there's suddenly a narrator signing off. Eh? OK, so it's a way to end the article, but a narrator isn't even hinted at for the rest of the time. It could have been an interesting device to add to the article, although that may have risked falling into the usual sports commentary clichés and detracting from the concept. But as it is, it feels like an afterthought, and adds nothing.
The pics: About the right number, all appropriate to the article, and decent variety. I'd have switched the first two around, so that the colour one makes the article seem more interesting as soon as it opens up. The first pic being a black on white line drawing is not the most striking. Allowing for the fact that I haven't a clue what the other symbols mean, and could therefore make it hysterically funny (although I'll guess that's unlikely), the first pic is solid, explains the text and so forth, and is captioned appropriately. Pic 2 likewise - solid, explains, captioned aptly. But neither of them amuse me or add anything to the article beyond explaining to novices like me what the article's about. Which is useful, sure, but I'll have to think about if that works in its favour or not.
The third pic is the best. I can see exactly what you're about, the 'chopping is good, and doesn't look incongruous, and it looks suitably unbalanced. Fine and dandy. Four is, well, kinda subtle, really. I'd hazard a guess that a few people might miss it, as I did on first glance. And second. The caption makes it work better, once you see what you're looking for.
- A well written article.
- The images are all relevant to the article, and helped me understand what it was about which is good, and part of the point of images.
- A well-made third image.
- Got some chuckles from me. Even though I will never enjoy the sport.
- Only one of four pics really adds anything funny to the article - the others just explain it. Which is still good, as above, but possibly not the point of the best illustrated article? Hard to decide on that point.
- A couple of passages don't really work for me, which is more of an issue when the main point of the article is the prose.
Final decision: Second. It's the best written of the articles, but this category is about more than that. The images explain the article, but don't add anything else. Plus, while I enjoyed it, it didn't make me chuckle as much as MSPAINTMAN, and that is, ultimately, what it really comes down to.