Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Encyclopedia Dramatica (Encyclopedia)

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Encyclopedia Dramatica (Encyclopedia)

Inspired by recent events, I added a few more sections to this. I still think it kinda sucks though. Really, why did old me think it was a good idea to somehow mix Entourage, the Enlightenment, and ED into a single article? Might as well just give "Concept" a "0" right now, future reviewer. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 19:57, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it a whirl, might be tomorrow night before it's done. --Black Flamingo 21:01, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Humour:	7	The humour is good but it's not without its problems. It seems to vary from section to section, both in its tone and in terms of how funny it is. To start with, the intro is perfect: you establish the dual concepts of ED and the Encyclopédie and do it all in a totally dry tone while making references to typical ED clichés. Brilliant. There are a couple of jokes throughout that don't feel as well developed, however. The one about the kitchen sink enigma for instance, unless I'm missing something, seems out of place. Does it really have a place here or did you just want the reader to have a look at the kitchen sink article? Another problem is that if you haven't read the kitchen sink article, you're not going to understand the line. You may not see this as a problem, of course, but I wanted to raise it anyway. If you think "so what if they have to read Kitchen Sink? It's a good article", then that would be fine with me. In the same section you mention Percy's anger at his additions being glossed over. I can't help but think it would help to have some hint of what his additions actually were, if only to get another reference to an ED cliché. Were they the typical troll-fare of ED, by any chance? Then there was the line about the Shakespearean street performer bundle. I had to read this a couple of times to get my head around it. I get it now, but I still feel it's a bit of a cumbersome joke. Can you think of something funnier than Shakespeare? I get that he's an icon of drama in the era you're talking about, but I personally think something ED-related would give it more focus, if you can think of something. A lot of the time when you use ED clichés you do it in a clever way, but I want to talk about the bit in the Lullardy section where you mention Goa Tse and buttsecks. These unfortunately feel like throwaway references with little effect, a far cry from the ingenious way you use the "at least 100 years ago" staple. With these you just sort of shove them on the end of a sentence as a list of subjects the encyclopaedia covered. Surely you can get so much more from such inherently funny topics? All the times I talk about making things "more ED" in this review, these are good examples of things you can play with. The rest of the Lullards section is excellent, although I didn't understand the "an hero" joke, I'm assuming this is just me being culturally retarded again. Another possible example of this is the whole Project Chanarchy section - which I'm not certain I get. I don't see the link between the Chanology protest and the American War of Independence. Maybe you could clear this part up. Or leave it, if the problem lies solely in my ignorance. Which it usually does. And finally, the Trivia section is a poor ending to an otherwise good article, at least in my opinion. There are some decent ideas in there, but it's all thrown together somewhat randomly and without care. I suppose a lot of the content in there is a bit random too, to be honest, with references to apparently unrelated people like Wyclef Jean and a confusing anecdote about the assassination of Pénible. I would probably just get rid of the whole section, but it's up to you of course.
Concept:	7	You're way too harsh on yourself when you suggest a zero for concept. I love the idea of ED being a parody of the Encyclopédie; it's a strong backbone to the article and doesn't really require any alteration. In fact, it's easily the best part of the whole thing, and should definitely be the focus, perhaps at the expense of some of the sillier parts. It could be developed in places, probably. You could probably build upon the parallel between the Encyclopédie and Wikipedia, for instance, which is already something you hint at when you link Denis Diderot to Jimbo Wales. The fact that they were all part of the Encyclopédie together to begin with sticks out because it doesn't match real life, but that leads me to my next point... Now I have never seen Entourage (although I have seen Zoolander now), so maybe I'm missing something, but I simply don't get why you've included it at all. With the exception of the opening picture, which works well enough, all of the references to Entourage only detract from the article or confuse the reader (well, they confuse me anyway). I suggest you try to shift away from that and focus squarely on the inspired ED/Encyclopédie idea.
Prose and formatting:	9	Your prose and formatting is good, simple as that. I suggest you take another look at it though as there are parts where the tone suddenly feels less encyclopaedic; what with words like "tightass" and "underrated" which sound more opinionated. I really enjoyed the straight tone of the stronger sections and the way it is juxtaposed with the subject matter. Obviously you understand the importance of consistency, I think there are just a few slip-ups here that you may want to revise.
Images:	8	All of the images are enjoyable, especially the Jew one. My only advice here is that the Entourage picture might be better off in the History section, so you can replace it with something more general in the lede - something big and grand that establishes your concept. The "front cover" picture of the encyclopaedia could do that come to think of it. Or perhaps a play on their logo or homepage... Anyway, I'll leave it with you.
Miscellaneous:	8	Eight.
Final Score:	39	Right, that's me done. So overall a good article with the potential to be great. A few edits here and there and this should be yet another feature for you in no time. If there's anything I've said here that you want me to explain better, or if you want my opinion on anything I might have missed, or even if you're just lonely, please let me know on my talky page and I'll try to help. I hope the review is ok.
Reviewer:	--Black Flamingo 22:36, May 13, 2011 (UTC)